Oh
Oh

Oh

Pushed
Pushed

Pushed

Https
Https

Https

He Died
He Died

He Died

Are
Are

Are

Our
Our

Our

After
After

After

Roof
Roof

Roof

Died
Died

Died

The
The

The

🔥 | Latest

Bad, Community, and Gif: stuartsemple 23m And the narc is... Send Message : X stuartsemple 23m The Lisson Gallery Send Message stuartsemple 23m Stuart Semp e Directors SSON GALLERY -54 Bell Street ndon, NW1 5DA mail and email to: contact@lissongallery.com BREACH OF TERMS OF SERVICE: CULTUREHUSTLE.COM ILLEGAL ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF ANISH KAPOOR OF THE WORLD'S EST PINK PII ear Sirs aware that you represent Mr. Anish Kapoor, and I write today not to dob him in so that yo n tell him off but rather to try and resolve this matter. Unlike Kapoor I am not one to 'point th ger however on this occasion it has become important to do so old your gallery in the highest esteem, I am a fan of several of your artists, but on this casion you have been extremely naughty. You have been part of a conspiracy to illegally tain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it e have now finished fully researching this situation and it has come to our attention that you we been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it enabling him exploit the substance against my wishes. Further, this juvenile behaviour made much of the der artistic community sad thanks to his extremely childish and petty post on instagram e terms of service on my site CultureHustle.com are incredibly clear Hote: By way affiliated to Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this paint Il not make its way into that hands of Anish Kapoor this duct to your cart you confim that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are direct violation to the above, on 10th of December 2016 a person by the name of Mr placed an order via the culturehustle.com website, for one jar of PINK at 5.36am. This Send Message stuartsemple 22m der was placed on behalf of your gallery and was duly delivered to The Lisson Gallery in ndon at 11.38am on the 13th of December. Shortly after which your gallery provided Mr. poor with the substance and on 23rd of December 2016 Mr. Kapoor posted a photograph or stagram showing he was indeed in possession of the substance, he also included the captio p Yours. The comments on this post clearly demonstrate the negative impact such a gesture shad upon a whole community. He needs to say sorry for hurting everyone's feelings. emind you, hoarding colours & stealing other people's colours without asking nicely isn't big rd it's simply bad. i said I think it would be best to resolve this matter amicably without this silly business calating any further. However, if we are unable to resolve this in a timely and grown up way n fully prepared to take further action which will no doubt become stressful and expensive. erefore I would appreciate it if: 1. Your gallery would say sorry for giving my pink to Mr. Kapoor 2 Mr. Kapoor would give me my PINK back. I don't want him to have it 3. He will write 100 lines 'I will be nice, I will share my colours and he will post the same his instagram iling the above, an agreeable settlement would also be 1. The re-imbursement of £3.99 (the cost of the PINK minus shipping) 2 And Mr. Kapoor to void his exclusive agreement over the use of Vanta Black in art. you were to settle as above I will be more than happy to share all my colours with him, so he esn't feel left out and can join in with the rest of us. ok forward to resolving this matter ours uart Semple Send Message capsgirl19: residesatshamecentral: groot-scamander: troublesomegay: spontaneousmusicalnumber: fox-smulders: STUART SEMPLE FOUND THE PINK NARC. God this is the greatest art feud of our time. Read the conditions of settlement. It’s gold. Captioned because even I’m having trouble reading this: [A screenshot from snapchat of a document that is cut off on the extreme edges, erasing the first and last two or three letters from each line. Doing my best to correctly transcribe] Breach of terms of service: culturehustle.comIllegal acquisition on behalf of Anish Kapoor of the World’s Pinkest Pink Dear Sirs, I am aware that you represent Mr. Anish Kapoor, and I write today not to dob him in so that you can tell him off but rather to try and resolve this matter. Unlike Kapoor I am not one to ‘point the finger’ however on this occasion it has become important to do so.  I hold your gallery in the highest esteem, I am a fan of several of your artists, but on this occasion you have been extremely naughty. You have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it. We have now finished fully researching this situation and it has come to your attention that you have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it enabling him to exploit the substance against my wishes. Further, this juvenile behavior made much of the wider artistic community sad thanks to his extremely petty and childish post on Instagram.  The terms of service on my site CultureHustle.com are incredibly clear:Quote: By adding this product to your cart you agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated with Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this product will not make its way into that hands of Anish Kapoor.  In direct violation to the above, on 10th of December 2016 a person by the name of Mr [Blanked out] placed an order via the culturehustle.com website, for one jar of PINK at 5:36 am. This order was placed on behalf of your gallery and was delivered to the Lisson Gallery in London at 11:38 am on the 13th of December. Shortly after which your gallery provided Mr. Kapoor with the substance and on the 23rd of December 2016 Mr. Kapoor posted a photograph on Instagram showing he was indeed in possession of the substance, he also included the caption ‘Up Yours’. The comments on this post clearly demonstrate the negative impact such a gesture has had upon a wide community. He needs to say sorry for hurting everyone’s feelings. I remind you, hoarding colours and stealing other people’s colours without asking nicely isn’t big -rd it’s simply bad.  I said I think it would be best to resolve this matter amicably without this silly business escalating any further. However, if we are unable to resolve this in a timely and grown up way I am fully prepared to take further action which will no doubt become stressful and expensive.  Therefore I would appreciate it if:1. Your gallery would say sorry for giving my pink to Mr. Kapoor. 2. Mr. Kapoor would give me my pink back. I don’t want him to have it. 3. He will write 100 times, ‘I will be nice, I will share my colours’ and he will post the same to his Instagram. Failing the above, an agreeable settlement would also be:1. The reimbursement of $3.99 (the cost of PINK minus shipping)2. And Mr. Kapoor to void his exclusive agreement to the use of Vanta Black in art. If you were to settle as above I will be more than happy to share all my colours with him, so he doesn’t feel left out and can join in with the rest of us. I look forward to resolving this matter.  Yours, Stuart Semple Thank you for captioning this! I’d seen it before but never been able to read it. Alright this is hilarious because Since they broke contract, he can sue them To avoid getting sued, they need to humilate themselves publicly AND convince Kapoor to do likewise If they don’t want to humiliate themselves and avoid getting sued, they need to convince Kapoor to give up his color copyright Stuart Semple everybody! I… oh my gods this was always the plan. An irresistible Trojan horse. Of course Kapoor would get his hands on it, that was only a matter of time, and now Semple’s backed them into a corner. Is this what watching chess feels like?
Bad, Community, and Gif: stuartsemple 23m
 And the
 narc
 is...
 Send Message
 :

 X
 stuartsemple 23m
 The
 Lisson
 Gallery
 Send Message

 stuartsemple 23m
 Stuart Semp
 e Directors
 SSON GALLERY
 -54 Bell Street
 ndon, NW1 5DA
 mail and email to: contact@lissongallery.com
 BREACH OF TERMS OF SERVICE: CULTUREHUSTLE.COM
 ILLEGAL ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF ANISH KAPOOR OF THE WORLD'S
 EST PINK
 PII
 ear Sirs
 aware that you represent Mr. Anish Kapoor, and I write today not to dob him in so that yo
 n tell him off but rather to try and resolve this matter. Unlike Kapoor I am not one to 'point th
 ger however on this occasion it has become important to do so
 old your gallery in the highest esteem, I am a fan of several of your artists, but on this
 casion you have been extremely naughty. You have been part of a conspiracy to illegally
 tain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it
 e have now finished fully researching this situation and it has come to our attention that you
 we been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it enabling him
 exploit the substance against my wishes. Further, this juvenile behaviour made much of the
 der artistic community sad thanks to his extremely childish and petty post on instagram
 e terms of service on my site CultureHustle.com are incredibly clear
 Hote: By
 way affiliated to Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor
 associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this paint
 Il not make its way into that hands of Anish Kapoor
 this
 duct to your cart you confim that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are
 direct violation to the above, on 10th of December 2016 a person by the name of Mr
 placed an order via the culturehustle.com website, for one jar of PINK at 5.36am. This
 Send Message

 stuartsemple 22m
 der was placed on behalf of your gallery and was duly delivered to The Lisson Gallery in
 ndon at 11.38am on the 13th of December. Shortly after which your gallery provided Mr.
 poor with the substance and on 23rd of December 2016 Mr. Kapoor posted a photograph or
 stagram showing he was indeed in possession of the substance, he also included the captio
 p Yours. The comments on this post clearly demonstrate the negative impact such a gesture
 shad upon a whole community. He needs to say sorry for hurting everyone's feelings.
 emind you, hoarding colours & stealing other people's colours without asking nicely isn't big
 rd it's simply bad.
 i said I think it would be best to resolve this matter amicably without this silly business
 calating any further. However, if we are unable to resolve this in a timely and grown up way
 n fully prepared to take further action which will no doubt become stressful and expensive.
 erefore I would appreciate it if:
 1. Your gallery would say sorry for giving my pink to Mr. Kapoor
 2 Mr. Kapoor would give me my PINK back. I don't want him to have it
 3. He will write 100 lines 'I will be nice, I will share my colours and he will post the same
 his instagram
 iling the above, an agreeable settlement would also be
 1. The re-imbursement of £3.99 (the cost of the PINK minus shipping)
 2 And Mr. Kapoor to void his exclusive agreement over the use of Vanta Black in art.
 you were to settle as above I will be more than happy to share all my colours with him, so he
 esn't feel left out and can join in with the rest of us.
 ok forward to resolving this matter
 ours
 uart Semple
 Send Message
capsgirl19:
residesatshamecentral:

groot-scamander:

troublesomegay:

spontaneousmusicalnumber:


fox-smulders:

STUART SEMPLE FOUND THE PINK NARC. 

God this is the greatest art feud of our time.

Read the conditions of settlement. It’s gold.
Captioned because even I’m having trouble reading this:
[A screenshot from snapchat of a document that is cut off on the extreme edges, erasing the first and last two or three letters from each line. Doing my best to correctly transcribe]
Breach of terms of service: culturehustle.comIllegal acquisition on behalf of Anish Kapoor of the World’s Pinkest Pink
Dear Sirs,
I am aware that you represent Mr. Anish Kapoor, and I write today not to dob him in so that you can tell him off but rather to try and resolve this matter. Unlike Kapoor I am not one to ‘point the finger’ however on this occasion it has become important to do so. 
I hold your gallery in the highest esteem, I am a fan of several of your artists, but on this occasion you have been extremely naughty. You have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it.
We have now finished fully researching this situation and it has come to your attention that you have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it enabling him to exploit the substance against my wishes. Further, this juvenile behavior made much of the wider artistic community sad thanks to his extremely petty and childish post on Instagram. 
The terms of service on my site CultureHustle.com are incredibly clear:Quote: By adding this product to your cart you agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated with Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this product will not make its way into that hands of Anish Kapoor. 
In direct violation to the above, on 10th of December 2016 a person by the name of Mr [Blanked out] placed an order via the culturehustle.com website, for one jar of PINK at 5:36 am. This order was placed on behalf of your gallery and was delivered to the Lisson Gallery in London at 11:38 am on the 13th of December. Shortly after which your gallery provided Mr. Kapoor with the substance and on the 23rd of December 2016 Mr. Kapoor posted a photograph on Instagram showing he was indeed in possession of the substance, he also included the caption ‘Up Yours’. The comments on this post clearly demonstrate the negative impact such a gesture has had upon a wide community. He needs to say sorry for hurting everyone’s feelings.
I remind you, hoarding colours and stealing other people’s colours without asking nicely isn’t big -rd it’s simply bad. 
I said I think it would be best to resolve this matter amicably without this silly business escalating any further. However, if we are unable to resolve this in a timely and grown up way I am fully prepared to take further action which will no doubt become stressful and expensive. 
Therefore I would appreciate it if:1. Your gallery would say sorry for giving my pink to Mr. Kapoor. 2. Mr. Kapoor would give me my pink back. I don’t want him to have it. 3. He will write 100 times, ‘I will be nice, I will share my colours’ and he will post the same to his Instagram.
Failing the above, an agreeable settlement would also be:1. The reimbursement of $3.99 (the cost of PINK minus shipping)2. And Mr. Kapoor to void his exclusive agreement to the use of Vanta Black in art.
If you were to settle as above I will be more than happy to share all my colours with him, so he doesn’t feel left out and can join in with the rest of us.
I look forward to resolving this matter. 
Yours,
Stuart Semple


Thank you for captioning this! I’d seen it before but never been able to read it.


Alright this is hilarious because
Since they broke contract, he can sue them
To avoid getting sued, they need to humilate themselves publicly AND convince Kapoor to do likewise
If they don’t want to humiliate themselves and avoid getting sued, they need to convince Kapoor to give up his color copyright

Stuart Semple everybody!


I… oh my gods this was always the plan. An irresistible Trojan horse. Of course Kapoor would get his hands on it, that was only a matter of time, and now Semple’s backed them into a corner. Is this what watching chess feels like?

capsgirl19: residesatshamecentral: groot-scamander: troublesomegay: spontaneousmusicalnumber: fox-smulders: STUART SEMPLE FOUND THE PI...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...