We say it a lot, but for them it is 100% true. No reason for any medical professional to vote GOP

Republicans are pretty much attacking the whole practice of medicine every day now.

"Vaccines are a conspiracy!"
"Nurses sit around playing cards all day!"
"They deliver the baby and then the doctor and mother decide if the baby should be executed!"
"We have the greatest healthcare system in the world... and it will all come crashing down if we let immigrants in with their DISEASES! It's that weak!"

This isn't ribbing, this isn't teasing, this isn't joking around, and it's not even political anymore... this is outright hostility to the calling and profession of medicine itself.

Nobody who works in a hospital or clinic should vote for the Republicans and if they want to come out against the Republican Party and the right wing ideology supporting this hostility against them, then we need to support them.

Once again: Race is a social construct

There is nothing natural, biological, divine, and even physically real other than the color of skin about "race" and even that has limits... the black race, the asian race, and the white race.

Social constructs, we have power over them. We can ignore them. We can tinker with them. We can expand them. We can destroy them, obliterate them completely. We can also let them control us... as white nationalists and the angry white/right wing people we're seeing under Trump are being controlled by. But it's something we let happen!

When we're seeing these people all but declare an unqualified white man is somehow "better" than an eminently qualified non-white person, when violence by white people is seen as somehow more acceptable than violence by immigrants, when white people "deserve their welfare" but non-white people are all lazy junkies, etc. You know what that is? That is being controlled by the social construct rather than controlling the social construct.

We need to control this social construct; this white nationalism, this angry white/right wing male syndrome needs to be called what it is... weakness.

A reading from Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship to Democracy"

It seems like whenever someone is going on about "Cultural Marxism" and it's not online...

That someone is murdering people.

This is 4chan-created bull.

Both parties and leaders across the ideological spectrum need to come out against this conspiracy theory... how racist it is, how nonsensical it is, how it's not connected to civility and debate but murdering people, etc.

We need a test for our leaders and pundits:

"If you do not denounce the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, then you are not fit to serve. Do you denounce this conspiracy theory?"

Maybe there should be a "Trump Bar" when it comes to impeachment of future presidents?

One of the things I am advocating is the wholesale removal of "impeachment" from the political landscape. Not having impeachment for the POTUS would have several benefits, it would increase the value of every vote (As in if we're stuck with that potus, then maybe we collectively won't vote for the joke candidate or for the candidate who won't disclose everything. And in the case of Trump, then it's both. Your vote will not be something to throw away now) and I am also a Democrat... I know that when a Democrat is potus, impeachment won't become this last-resort option that we should never actually use, but there will be people who are OK with using impeachment as a way to "cleanse" the office rather than removing a president for "high crimes and misdemeanors", I don't like double standards, maybe we should remove the standard.

In my studies of doing this, I have found out that there is 'hard removal' and 'soft removal'.

Hard removal - Actually amending the Constitution to remove impeachment from it

Soft removal - Make the bar as a whole harder to reach

I am OK with both ways of hard removal and soft removal of impeachment, a way of soft removal is maybe there should be a "Trump Bar" for impeachment of a future potus.

As in... "Do the actions of this president exceed the Trump Bar?"

If the answer is "No", then impeachment is not on the table. Discussion ends there.

This has a couple of benefits:

1. We raise the bar for impeachment, this is one of many potential ways of getting soft removal and I've got people who don't want impeachment removed but yet agreeing with me that impeachment is broken. This is how we can do it.

2. We protect a future Democratic president from impeachment, it is no longer something that can be wielded as a petty weapon against a 'radical' potus that a future right wing House and Senate would not like.

3. This uses Trump as a standard for corruption, Trump becomes the line where corruption becomes too much. This would be an unwanted version of Trump's face on Mt. Rushmore or on the dollar bill. If you don't like the cult of personality associated with Trump, then this is a good counterattack against that cult.

Hard removal and soft removal... Both of these things need to happen to protect the party and to patch a hole in the rule of law.

It starts here, it starts today. Let's repair the political landscape.

It's time to begin discussion of amending the Constitution - To remove impeachment from it

I don't think the framers of the Constitution envisioned the partisan risk that could come with wielding impeachment as a weapon.

To see that the bar of "high crimes and misdemeanors" change simply because of the parties in Congress and who is in the White House change, I don't think that is what the serious charge of impeachment is supposed to be about.

Nothing will get Trump impeached today, what if years from now, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is president, what will be the bar? Will it be in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham in 1999, in his own words that "impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office", do you want to wait for President Ocasio-Cortez's mere presence in the White House to be enough to become worthy of impeachment, to "cleanse" her from the office?

The law should not be a partisan game, remove impeachment from the Constitution if we're not going to use it for Trump and have lawmakers who will be more than willing to use it for a president who will do much less than he has already done.

"And Roger Stone", that's one redacted line of the Mueller Report revealed!

Look for quotes and context!

Page 128, where Trump says it was brave that Manafort did not flip.

“But I had three people: Manafort, Corsi — I don’t know Corsi, but he refuses to say what they demanded. Manafort, Corsi and Roger Stone.”

- That's the full quote in the media, the bold part is redacted in the Mueller report.

I wonder if we can do this elsewhere?

For all them saying "Omar minimized 9/11", Trumpies REALLY don't like talking about Trump-Alex Jones

I've tried it with several angles...

"You know, Donald Trump is chummy with a man who says 9/11 was an "inside job", how is that better than what Omar said?"

-I've been blocked
-I've been called "IDIOT!" and they don't talk to me anymore (Which is a little rude since I never call them idiot)
-I've been met with silence... by people who were more than willing to go on and on about Ilhan Omar

Literally everything BUT answering my questions about why did Trump go on this man's show, why Roger Stone is friends with this man, why his administration gives him friendly coverage, or what he thinks about this man's conspiracy theories.

Kind of makes me wonder if there's something else going on when they are attacking Rep. Ilhan Omar, hmm, I wonder white it is?

If you're on Twitter, let's get #TrumpJones911 trending

Trump wants stochastic terror against Rep. Ilhan Omar with a spliced video, but he, his administration, his family, and his fans associate with and love Alex Jones... a man who has repeatedly claimed that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job".

How's that for "some people did something"?

This isn't just a double standard, this is a gross injustice.

Let's make it known, let's get it out there.

#TrumpJones911

What if it's less Russia colluded with Trump, and more the American ultra right used Russian power?

Not saying Trump-Russian collusion didn't happen, but I'm starting to think that as bad as Putin is, as bad as his regime is, it's just another pawn.

I'm talking about the group that saw the "upcoming war on Iraq" as part of the end times
I'm talking about the group that sees surviving school shootings as "socialism"
I'm talking about the group that ran Iran-Contra and destroyed Inslaw
I'm talking about the group that heckled with "Yeah!" when the question was about letting someone without health insurance die long before Russians propped up Trump
I'm talking about that Reagan admin fixer Oliver North who is now leading the NRA
I'm talking about that Reagan admin fixer Elliott Abrams who is now in the Trump White House leading Venezuelan policy
I'm talking about that 33%.

We like to talk about Russian bots, Russian manipulation, Russian influence, and so on. But what if it was mutual? What if there was some influence on Russia as much as it influenced the rest of the world?

The name of the game is nationalism; we're seeing it in the US, in Russia, in Brazil, in Hungary, in Israel. Israel has occupied the West Bank and the Golan Heights, with the latter the Trump admin plans to recognize as Israeli and with the former Netanyahu himself has said he plans to annex.

Now go over to Russia which has claimed areas in Georgia and Ukraine with military force (It's an occupation) and is deploying soldiers in Venezuela... which of course the US here does not recognize.

I think we're going to reach a flash point sooner rather than later with these two permanent UN security council members each backing and involving themselves in separate causes that have similar backgrounds. There's going to be a winner and a loser here and it's going to put a very dark mark on that security council of the UN... which just happens to be a very big bugaboo for that ultra right which hates multiculturalism and transnational entities like the UN.

Our ultra right.