Supreme Court


                    
                    
                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    
        

            

                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Procession
        

            
            Procession
        

    

    

         
Procession

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Senations
        

            
            Senations
        

    

    

         
Senations

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        The
        

            
            The
        

    

    

         
The

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Confirmed
        

            
            Confirmed
        

    

    

         
Confirmed

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Supremeness
        

            
            Supremeness
        

    

    

         
Supremeness

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        Heared
        

            
            Heared
        

    

    

         
Heared

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        supreme-court-nominee
        

            
            supreme-court-nominee
        

    

    

         
supreme-court-nominee

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

         the supreme
        

            
             the supreme
        

    

    

         
 the supreme

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

         one of the most
        

            
             one of the most
        

    

    

         
 one of the most

    



                
                    
                    
                    
                    

    

        leader
        

            
            leader
        

    

    

         
leader

    



                
            

        

    
    

        🔥 | Latest
    

    
    

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: sjwpanderer:

ted cruz is gonna kill a supreme court judge
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: sjwpanderer:

ted cruz is gonna kill a supreme court judge
                
            

            
            
sjwpanderer:

ted cruz is gonna kill a supreme court judge

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: G-Wiz
 @gwheele 1
 Follow
 The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO
 boxes. Only residents with street addresses
 can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off
 voting rights to Native Americans in ND.
 The Supreme Court just made it harder for the Democrats to win the Senate
 A new ruling will prevent many Native Anericans in the state from voting
 motherjones.com
 3:38 PM-9 Oct 2018
 10,286 Retweets 8,321 Likes

 Follow
 @lilnativeboy
 Native Americans were the LAST to get
 the right to vote & now we are the first
 to lose it
 G-WİZ @gwheelel
 The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street
 addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native
 Americans in ND. motherjones.com/politics/2018...
 12:35 AM-11 Oct 2018
 5,610 Retweets9.715 Likes
armsnotsigns:

vaporwavevocap:

mr-downer:
vaporwavevocap:


mr-downer:

vaporwavevocap:


friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

libertarirynn:

rook-the-catechumen:


hzs-modblog:


rook-the-catechumen:


gahdamnpunk:
This is messed up

Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways.


That is the wrong response, mister!


I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal  multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind.
You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies.



Monarchists get thrown into the harbor…if they’re lucky

“multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind” 
Fucking when?


Oh my this man is fuckin the cybersmith in disguise isn’t he? Aye you can’t fool me warlock I know your stench!

That’s not to say I’m defending the authoritarian cancer of Republican Democracy, but fucking what Monarchy served mankind peacefully? Even if we pretend it was a fictional Biblical monarchy led by Yahweh himself, he is very specifically not peaceful and makes it very clear in “his” own book.


Just so we’re clear you know I was talking about the loon above not you, right?

I know, I’m just reacting to him more. Sorry for confusion.

Holy fucking wow

“I mean sure in Saudi Arabia you can be fucking stoned to death for saying the wrong words or wearing the wrong clothes but like it’s stable y’know?”
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: G-Wiz
 @gwheele 1
 Follow
 The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO
 boxes. Only residents with street addresses
 can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off
 voting rights to Native Americans in ND.
 The Supreme Court just made it harder for the Democrats to win the Senate
 A new ruling will prevent many Native Anericans in the state from voting
 motherjones.com
 3:38 PM-9 Oct 2018
 10,286 Retweets 8,321 Likes

 Follow
 @lilnativeboy
 Native Americans were the LAST to get
 the right to vote & now we are the first
 to lose it
 G-WİZ @gwheelel
 The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street
 addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native
 Americans in ND. motherjones.com/politics/2018...
 12:35 AM-11 Oct 2018
 5,610 Retweets9.715 Likes
armsnotsigns:

vaporwavevocap:

mr-downer:
vaporwavevocap:


mr-downer:

vaporwavevocap:


friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

libertarirynn:

rook-the-catechumen:


hzs-modblog:


rook-the-catechumen:


gahdamnpunk:
This is messed up

Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways.


That is the wrong response, mister!


I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal  multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind.
You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies.



Monarchists get thrown into the harbor…if they’re lucky

“multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind” 
Fucking when?


Oh my this man is fuckin the cybersmith in disguise isn’t he? Aye you can’t fool me warlock I know your stench!

That’s not to say I’m defending the authoritarian cancer of Republican Democracy, but fucking what Monarchy served mankind peacefully? Even if we pretend it was a fictional Biblical monarchy led by Yahweh himself, he is very specifically not peaceful and makes it very clear in “his” own book.


Just so we’re clear you know I was talking about the loon above not you, right?

I know, I’m just reacting to him more. Sorry for confusion.

Holy fucking wow

“I mean sure in Saudi Arabia you can be fucking stoned to death for saying the wrong words or wearing the wrong clothes but like it’s stable y’know?”
                
            

            
            
armsnotsigns:

vaporwavevocap:

mr-downer:
vaporwavevocap:


mr-downer:

vaporwavevocap:


friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

libertariryn...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

                
                

                
            

            
            
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the live...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: ONEWS RELEASE
 MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein
 Director of Communications
 jordan.stein@gunowners.org
 AMER 703-321-8585
 January 22, 2019
 For immediate release
 GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York
 City's Draconian Gun Laws
 Springfield, VA
 Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in
 P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners
 Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief.
 This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin
 handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the
 Supreme Court in almost a decade.
 GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy
 those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court
 is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second
 Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a
 alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class
 right to keep and bear arms
 In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the
 lower courts
 GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun
 Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment.
 "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by
 arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second
 Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt
 concluded.
 GOA's brief can be viewed here
 Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America
BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: ONEWS RELEASE
 MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein
 Director of Communications
 jordan.stein@gunowners.org
 AMER 703-321-8585
 January 22, 2019
 For immediate release
 GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York
 City's Draconian Gun Laws
 Springfield, VA
 Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in
 P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners
 Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief.
 This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin
 handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the
 Supreme Court in almost a decade.
 GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy
 those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court
 is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second
 Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a
 alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class
 right to keep and bear arms
 In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the
 lower courts
 GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun
 Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment.
 "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by
 arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second
 Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt
 concluded.
 GOA's brief can be viewed here
 Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America
BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica
                
            

            
            
BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief bef...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
onceuponamirror:

helenofhere:

snarksandkisses:


Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


This is the most important post on this platform since early 2016. 


WE ARE NOT FUCKING IT UP TWICE. DO NOT LET PROPAGANDA AND MANIPULATION DIVIDE US AGAINST GETTING THIS MONSTER OUT. thanks 

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
onceuponamirror:

helenofhere:

snarksandkisses:


Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


This is the most important post on this platform since early 2016. 


WE ARE NOT FUCKING IT UP TWICE. DO NOT LET PROPAGANDA AND MANIPULATION DIVIDE US AGAINST GETTING THIS MONSTER OUT. thanks 

                
            

            
            
onceuponamirror:

helenofhere:

snarksandkisses:


Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


This is the most important post on this platfor...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:

                
            

            
            
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
heatheralicewatson:
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


You can have a favorite in the primaries, and even make a passionate case for your favorite, without drilling down on why the other candidates are monsters.  You really truly can.

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
heatheralicewatson:
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


You can have a favorite in the primaries, and even make a passionate case for your favorite, without drilling down on why the other candidates are monsters.  You really truly can.

                
            

            
            
heatheralicewatson:
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


You can have a favorite in the primaries, and even make a pa...

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: Emily Holmes
 January 2 at 11:26 AM
 Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay
 pigeons
 I repeat.
 DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS
 But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor?
 It goes like this
 One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are
 going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch
 themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision
 Our job is not to shoot them.
 Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the
 gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and
 guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being
 absolutely perfect.
 Not likeable enough. BOOM
 Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM
 Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM
 I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM
 Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM
 Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM
 Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade
 them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the
 media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do
 the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM
 And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered
 remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back
 together into a candidate who can win the general election.
 And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016,
 apparently
 Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate
 his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he
 was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they
 pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross
 incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some
 really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and
 they will continue to do so for as long as we let them

 So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not
 your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to
 yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS
 INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE
 FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS
 COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN.
 I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of
 personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the
 iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES
 But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms
 Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES
 AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER
 YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE
 VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register
 people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards
 Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why
 yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR
 things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember,
 but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do
 Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and
 voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period
 It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient
 fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this
 right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear
 ourselves apart?
 Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international
 reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free
 press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white
 dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old
 woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on
 for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I
 mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't
 have to.
 I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid
 options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR
 ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability"
 and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to
 rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves
 So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the
 numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's
 explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare
 administration in our wake.
 BOOM
 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:

                
            

            
            
snarksandkisses:

Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:


            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather for a formal group portrait to include the new Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather for a formal group portrait to include the new Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
                
            

            
            
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather for a formal group portrait to include the new Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

            
            
        

    



            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                






            

        

        
        

            

                







    Supreme Court: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Supreme Court: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

                
            

            
            
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be force...