KRISTEN'S BOARD
Congratulations to 2024 Pervert of the Year Shiela_M and 2024 Author of the Year Writers Bloque!

News:

The Trump thread: All things Donald

joan1984 · 281795

0 Members and 19 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5360 on: April 11, 2019, 01:36:35 PM
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested by British police after being evicted from Ecuador’s embassy in London

Quote
PARIS — Ecuador handed Julian Assange over to British authorities Thursday, ending a standoff that left the controversial WikiLeaks founder holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London for nearly seven years.

Video of the arrest showed a gray-bearded Assange being pulled by British police officers down the steps of the embassy and shoved into a waiting police van. Assange appeared to be physically resisting. His hands were bound in front of him.

Ecuador, which took Assange in when he was facing a Swedish rape investigation in 2012, said it was rescinding asylum because he of his “discourteous and aggressive behavior” and for violating the terms of his asylum.

The British government heralded the development. “Julian Assange is no hero and no one is above the law,” Jeremy Hunt, Britain’s foreign secretary, wrote on Twitter. “He has hidden from the truth for years.”

Sweden dropped its sex crimes inquiry in May 2017 — Assange had always denied the allegations. But he still faces up to a year in prison in Britain for jumping bail in 2012. And, more than anything, he fears extradition to the United States, which has been investigating him for espionage, the publication of sensitive government documents and coordination with Russia.

London's Metropolitan Police carried out the Thursday morning arrest and said in a statement that they were “invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government’s withdrawal of asylum.” In response, the Russian government accused Britain of “strangling freedom” by taking custody of Assange.

“Ecuador has sovereignly decided to terminate the diplomatic asylum granted to Mr. Assange in 2012,” President Lenín Moreno said in a video statement tweeted by the country’s communications department. “The asylum of Mr. Assange is unsustainable and no longer viable.”

Moreno specifically cited Assange’s involvement in what he described as WikiLeaks’ meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, referring to the leaking of documents from the Vatican in January.

“Mr. Assange violated, repeatedly, clear-cut provisions of the conventions on diplomatic asylum of Havana and Caracas, despite the fact that he was requested on several occasions to respect and abide by these rules,” Moreno said Thursday. “He particularly violated the norm of not intervening in the internal affairs of other states. The most recent incident occurred in January 2019 when WikiLeaks leaked Vatican documents.”

“Key members of that organization visited Mr. Assange before and after such illegal acts,” Moreno said. “This and other publications have confirmed the world’s suspicion that Mr. Assange is still linked to WikiLeaks and therefore involved in interfering in internal affairs of other states.”

WikiLeaks confirmed Assange’s arrested and used the occasion as a fundraising opportunity on Twitter.

“This man is a son, a father, a brother,” the group said in a tweet, above a headshot of Assange. “He has won dozens of journalism awards. He’s been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2010. Powerful actors, including CIA, are engaged in a sophisticated effort to dehumanise, delegitimize and imprison him.”

The group had earlier threatened long-term consequences if Ecuador turned Assange over to the British. “If President Moreno wants to illegally terminate a refu­gee publisher’s asylum to cover up an offshore corruption scandal, history will not be kind,” WikiLeaks said in a statement.

Ahead of the U.S. election in 2016, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of emails that had been stolen from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, in cyber-hacks that U.S. intelligence officials concluded were orchestrated by the Russian government.

When special counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers, he charged that they “discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases” with WikiLeaks — referred to as “Organization 1” in the indictment — “to heighten their impact on the 2016 presidential election.”

But Assange has been on U.S. prosecutors’ radar since 2010, when WikiLeaks’ publication of 250,000 diplomatic cables and hundreds of thousands of military documents from the Iraq War prompted denunciations by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and senior Pentagon officials.

The Army private who had passed the material to WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning, was tried, convicted and served seven years of a 35-year prison term before having her sentence commuted by President Barack Obama as he left office. She was jailed again last month for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating Assange.

In the last administration, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided against pursuing prosecution of Assange out of concern that WikiLeaks’ argument that it is a journalistic organization would raise thorny First Amendment issues and set an unwelcome precedent.

The Trump administration, however, revisited the question of prosecuting members of WikiLeaks, and last November a court filing error revealed that Assange had been charged under seal.

Conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage Act are among the possible charges.

Some federal prosecutors say a case can be made that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic organization. As if to lay the groundwork for such an argument, in April 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, characterized WikiLeaks as a “nonstate hostile intelligence service” and a threat to U.S. national security.

Pompeo also noted then that the intelligence community’s report concluding Russia interfered in the 2016 election also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, “has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.”

Assange’s expulsion from Ecuador’s embassy reflects a shift in the country’s politics since it first extended refuge to him.

Leftist former president Rafael Correa, now living in Belgium, is wanted for arrest in his homeland over alleged links to a 2012 political kidnapping. Correa was viewed as a member of an anti-Washington gaggle of South American leaders, including Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and Bolivia’s Evo Morales. He kicked out the U.S. ambassador in 2011.

The more moderate Moreno, in sharp contrast, has sought to mend frayed ties with the United States, Ecuador’s largest trading partner, and has dismissed Assange as “a stone in my shoe.”

In June 2018, Vice President Pence visited Quito, the capital, as part of the most senior U.S. delegation sent to Ecuador in years.

“Our nations had experienced 10 difficult years where our people always felt close but our governments drifted apart,” Pence said. “But over the past year, Mr. President, thanks to your leadership and the actions that you’ve taken have brought us closer together once again. And you have the appreciation of President Trump and the American people.”

Sebastián Hurtado is president of Prófitas, a political consulting firm in Quito.

“I think the president has never been comfortable with Assange in the embassy,” he said. “And it’s not like this is an important issue for most Ecuadorans. To be honest, we really don’t care about Assange.”

The Moreno administration had made no secret of its desire to unload the issue. In December 2017, it granted Ecuadoran citizenship to Australian-born Assange and then petitioned Britain to allow him diplomatic immunity. The British government refused, saying the way to resolve the stalemate was for Assange to “face justice.”

Another hint that Assange was wearing out his welcome came in March 2018, when Ecuador cut off his Internet access, saying he had breached an agreement not to interfere in the affairs of other states. The embassy did not specify what Assange had done, but the move came after he tweeted criticism of Britain’s assessment that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of a Russian former double agent and his daughter in the city of Salisbury.

Ecuador imposed tighter house rules last fall. Among the demands were that Assange pay for his medical and phone bills and clean up after his cat.

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


_priapism

  • Guest
Reply #5361 on: April 11, 2019, 06:52:56 PM


Stay in school.  Don’t do drugs.




Offline Jed_

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 4,824
    • Woos/Boos: +413/-12
    • Gender: Male
  • I really am a demon that defiles helpless girls
    • Forbidden Forced Fantasy
Reply #5363 on: April 12, 2019, 12:28:31 AM


Stay in school.  Don’t do drugs.


And suddenly Trump is Sargent Shultz, ‘I know nothing, I see nothing. . . . .’



Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5364 on: April 12, 2019, 01:14:54 AM
Mnuchin’s act of abject lawlessness

Quote
The announcement that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin would not provide six years of President Trump’s tax returns by the deadline given by the House Ways and Means Committee chairman was just the latest in a long series of egregious attacks on the rule of law. Perhaps it felt more egregious than some because the law at issue is so clear (the Treasury Department “shall” provide them) and the administration’s conduct is so indefensible.

The Post reports:

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said his department would not meet the Wednesday deadline set by congressional Democrats to turn over copies of President Trump’s tax returns, escalating a clash between the White House and Congress.

Mnuchin said he was consulting with the Justice Department as to the constitutional questions raised by the Democrats’ request and appeared deeply skeptical of the lawmakers’ intentions. He did not flatly reject the notion that he might ultimately comply, but his letter to the House Ways and Means Committee suggested that Mnuchin would not hold himself to any timeline.


Even jaded legal experts versed in the Trump administration’s lawlessness were taken aback by this brazen defiance of the law.

“When Democrats first made their request Trump stated that he ‘wasn’t inclined’ to turn over his returns as if he had a choice,” recalls former prosecutor Mimi Rocah. “That seemed like a preposterous statement because the law seems very clear. But it now appears that the Treasury Department is taking that same lawless position playing defense for a President that is terrified for the public and Congress to see his tax returns.” She adds, “The law is written in a mandatory way so that politics won’t influence the process. But unfortunately that’s exactly what’s happened.”

Constitutional scholar Joshua Matz also finds the administration’s conduct preposterous. “Under the plain language of the statute, [Way and Means Committee] Chairman [Richard E.] Neal is undoubtedly entitled to review the President’s tax returns. So the question is whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied to President Trump. And the answer is no,” Matz tells me. “Secretary Mnuchin’s assertion that this request serves no legitimate legislative purpose cannot be taken seriously. It’s one thing for the President to insist that he can run a business while also running the Executive Branch; it’s quite another to claim that he is immune from any oversight regarding conflicts of interest while doing so.”

And, of course, the latest act of defiance is not an isolated breach of the president’s oath. The tax returns are actually more relevant to Congress’ oversight function than they would be for a law-abiding, norm-preserving president. Matz argues that “since taking office, President Trump has engaged in exceedingly irregular conduct, both at home and abroad, that makes his financial entanglements highly relevant to subjects firmly within Congress’s investigatory purview — including (but not limited to) national security, foreign affairs, tax policy, regulatory priorities, abuse of power, and the prohibition on acceptance of foreign and domestic emoluments.” Matz explains, “The fact that Republicans allowed congressional oversight powers to wither and atrophy on their watch does not now entitle Secretary Mnuchin to disregard a proper exercise of those powers under Democratic control of the House.” He concludes, “There is nothing Nixonian about the House asking President Trump to honor an unbroken line of presidential precedent and release his tax returns; what’s Nixonian here is the suggestion, rife throughout the Trump administration, that this President is above the law.”

One hopes that the House does not put up with these shenanigans. Ways and Means should vote to issue a subpoena. If need be, the House must go to court to enforce the law and its status as a coequal branch of government.

Should the standoff go all the way to the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see how Republican-appointed justices who pride themselves on being “originalists” and sticking to the text of statutes and the Constitution handle this case. It would be an easy case for the justices — especially if Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. can turn out a unanimous opinion (as the court did in the Nixon Watergate tape case) — to rebut the impression that they are hopeless partisans. And for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, whose independence and objectivity were thrown into doubt by his partisan rant during his confirmation hearing, a decision against the administration would be the first step in a much-needed personal rehabilitation.

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5365 on: April 12, 2019, 01:17:42 AM
The 6 most potentially damaging congressional investigations for Trump, ranked

Quote
Ever since Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, they’ve focused much of their investigative firepower on President Trump. Half a dozen committees have begun probes into everything from his tax returns to whether he obstructed the investigation into his campaign and what he told the Russian president behind closed doors.

But not all investigations are created equal. Here are the most potentially damaging ones to the president, ranked in order from least to most.

6. Did Trump obstruct justice?

At least two House committees are looking into whether Trump obstructed justice, unconvinced by Attorney General William P. Barr’s conclusion that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not find sufficient evidence. The House Judiciary Committee will try to force Barr to hand over the unredacted report. And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), said it’s “inevitable” that Mueller will testify to Congress. Schiff also wants to know whether the FBI is still investigating Trump’s ties to Russia, regardless of the end of the special counsel investigation.

Likelihood of getting the documents: Barr said he’ll release much of the Mueller report within a week. But getting the unredacted report will be a fight, because Barr has said Congress would have to make their case before a judge to be able to see it.

What this could mean for Trump: Some on Mueller’s team say there’s more obstruction-related news in their report than the attorney general shared. But if an independent investigator ostensibly couldn’t find enough evidence to clearly implicate the president in a crime, it’s doubtful a deeply divided Congress will. And even if lawmakers did find something, it almost certainly would be viewed by many Americans through the lens of partisanship.

5. Did Trump make foreign policy decisions to enrich himself?

Schiff, the lawmaker at the center of many Russia-related investigations, said his Intelligence Committee will prioritize counterintelligence concerns, such as whether Trump could be financially compromised when he makes foreign policy decisions. Schiff specifically cited Trump’s attempts to build a tower in Moscow and his existing business ties with Saudi officials. To dig in, Schiff hired a former federal prosecutor known for tracking Russian organized crime who will help the committee look into things like whether the president’s businesses have any money laundering ties. He also wants the transcripts of all conversations Trump has had with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Chance of getting the documents: Fairly low, because it’s not totally clear what exists. Trump went to great lengths to keep secret details from a two-hour conversation he had with Putin in July.

What this could mean for Trump: It’s hard to say, because it depends on what Schiff’s committee uncovers — or doesn’t. Corruption can be difficult to prove in a legal setting, since the quid pro quo (you do this for me, I’ll do that for you) is rarely a straight line. But of all allegations against Trump, his curious friendliness toward Russia and Saudi Arabia appears to irk Republicans the most. Could Schiff uncover something that turns some GOP lawmakers against the president?

4. Did Trump inflate his net worth?

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform is asking one of Trump’s accounting firms for 10 years of the president’s financial documents.

They want to know if Trump fudged how much money he really had to get loans or to dodge real estate taxes. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, testified to Congress earlier this year that Trump bumped up his net worth to try to buy the Buffalo Bills football team, for example. The committee also wants to know why Trump’s financial documents once failed to disclose some $75 million in debt on a Chicago Trump Tower.

Taken together, it’s possible these alleged actions could constitute fraud and be illegal.

Likelihood of getting the documents: Pretty high. The accounting firm, Mazars USA, is asking Congress for a “friendly subpoena” to hand over the information, House Oversight Chairman Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said.

What this could mean for Trump: Congress can’t charge Trump with a crime, and it’s likely that the Justice Department wouldn’t indict the president as long as he’s in office. But evidence that Trump repeatedly resorted to unsavory or even illegal business practices is, well, not the best way to start a presidential reelection campaign. And it could punch a hole in one of his central narrative to voters, that he’ll run the country like he runs his business.

3. Did Trump lie about getting Jared Kushner a security clearance?

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform plans to subpoena the White House’s former security director as part of its investigation into how people like Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner got security clearances over national security officials’ objections. Those objections, as detailed by a whistleblower working with the committee, included concern about these Trump officials’ ability to be blackmailed, potentially inappropriate foreign ties, conflicts of interest and drug abuse and criminal conduct. The committee wants to get the exact list of everyone who got a clearance over concerns from security experts like whistleblower Tricia Newbold.

Likelihood of getting the documents: It’s unclear whether they’ll get the full list of people granted clearances over experts’ objections. But Newbold’s boss at the White House, Carl Kline, has indicated he’s willing to talk to Congress.

What this could mean for Trump: This investigation has the potential to catch Trump in a lie. He told the New York Times in January he had no role in getting Kushner top-secret clearance after experts denied Trump’s son-in-law. But the New York Times reported the existence of memos by his former chief of staff and other White House officials documenting that Trump ordered them to give Kushner the top-secret clearance. As president, that’s Trump prerogative. But Trump is ultimately in charge of protecting the nation’s secrets, and it’s possible some of his allies worry he put that in jeopardy for his son-in-law.

2. Is there something damaging in the president’s tax returns?

The House Ways and Means committee, which oversees the IRS, requested six years of Trump’s tax returns, plus returns from some of his businesses like his golf club in New Jersey. Together, Democrats say this information represents the “core of the president’s business empire.”

Likelihood of getting the documents: If the Treasury Department refuses to hand them over, it’s looking like the battle for Trump’s taxes will play out in court. If Congress wins, a Democratic aide said it’s possible the public could see his tax returns, too. But that’s if Congress wins. The question here is not whether lawmakers can request the returns but whether they can prove they have a legitimate, legislative reason to.

What this could mean for Trump: It’s clear by now that the president doesn’t want the country to see the footprints of his financial life. He was the first major presidential candidate in decades not to voluntarily release his tax returns, raising the question: Is there something in there that he fears could be politically damaging to him? Also, this investigation has the potential to determine if Trump really was under audit during the campaign, as he claimed. (The president has repeatedly said that he won’t release the returns and that the public doesn’t care. He addressed this as recently as Wednesday, when he told reporters, “I got elected last time with the exact same issue. . . . Frankly, the people don’t care.”)

1. Did Trump play a role in illegal hush-money payments?

n February, the House Oversight Committee had Cohen testify about 2016 hush-money payments to quiet women alleging Trump had affairs with them. Now, the committee is investigating whether Trump disclosed these payments as campaign contributions (all indications are he didn’t, which would be illegal). A Democratic aide said they are also trying to interview Trump’s personal attorney, Sheri Dillon, as well as a Trump Organization lawyer, Stefan Passantino, about it.

Likelihood of getting the information: We’ll see if Trump’s lawyers talk.

What this means for Trump: Of all the investigations, this is the clearest line connecting Trump to potential illegal activity. Cohen will go to jail for three years for crimes tied to this investigation, and Cohen testified that Trump directed him to make these payments. He even provided the committee with two checks that he said showed Trump reimbursed him. If so, this could be a violation of campaign finance laws. Remember a sitting president probably can’t be indicted. But given this is already an ongoing investigation, is Trump in danger of prosecution over this if he were to lose the election in 2020?

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5366 on: April 13, 2019, 01:02:05 AM
Trump told CBP head he'd pardon him if he were sent to jail for violating immigration law

Quote
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump told Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan he would grant McAleenan a pardon if he were sent to jail for having border agents block asylum seekers from entering the US in defiance of US law, senior administration officials tell CNN.

Trump reportedly made the comment during a visit to the border at Calexico, California, a week ago. It was not clear if the comment was a joke.

Two officials briefed on the exchange say the President told McAleenan, since named the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, that he "would pardon him if he ever went to jail for denying US entry to migrants," as one of the officials paraphrased.

The White House referred CNN to the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS spokesman told CNN, "At no time has the President indicated, asked, directed or pressured the Acting Secretary to do anything illegal. Nor would the Acting Secretary take actions that are not in accordance with our responsibility to enforce the law."

The exchange came amid threats by the President to close the border in response to a steep uptick of migrants at the border. In March, there were approximately 92,000 arrests of undocumented migrants for illegal entry on the southern border, up from 37,390 last March, according to CBP.

During his visit to Calexico last Friday, Trump said on camera: "We're full, our system's full, our country's full -- can't come in! Our country is full, what can you do? We can't handle any more, our country is full. Can't come in, I'm sorry. It's very simple."

Behind the scenes, two sources told CNN, the President told border agents to not let migrants in. Tell them we don't have the capacity, he said. If judges give you trouble, say, "Sorry, judge, I can't do it. We don't have the room."

After the President left the room, agents sought further advice from their leaders, who told them they were not giving them that direction and if they did what the President said they would take on personal liability. You have to follow the law, they were told.
Trump has grown frustrated by the number of migrants apprehended at the southern border, placing blame on Democrats and the nation's immigration laws. On Friday, the President said he's considering releasing immigrants into so-called sanctuary cities in part to retaliate against Democrats, undercutting earlier denials from his own administration officials.

"Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only," Trump said on Twitter. "The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy -- so this should make them very happy!"

Yet the White House received legal guidance months ago that such a policy would run afoul of the law, open the administration to lawsuits, and ultimately undermine the President's desire to deport undocumented immigrants.

In February, according to documents obtained by CNN, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, John Mitnick, told the White House in writing that such a move could only be done if there was a "strong, mission-related rationale" pertaining to the responsibilities of the department.

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5367 on: April 13, 2019, 01:03:54 AM
How A Trump Proposal Could Reduce 'Happy' Disabled People

Quote
A new policy proposal by the Trump administration calls for the surveillance of disabled people’s social media profiles to determine the necessity of their disability benefits. The proposal, which reportedly aims to cut down on the number of fraudulent disability claims would, monitor the profiles of disabled people and flag content that shows them doing physical activities. When it comes down to it, the policy dictates that disabled people shouldn’t be seen living their lives for fear of losing vital financial aid and, possibly, medical care.

The administration has been working closely with the Social Security Administration in an effort to reduce false claims believing that social media holds a cache of information regarding eligibility of Social Security Disability Benefits. They believe that by monitoring the social media accounts of disability benefit recipients, they can root out false claims and reduce the overall amount of money spent on the programs.

The proposal, like many of its policies regarding disabled people, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of disability and takes advantage of how social media operates in order to cut them off from the support they need. Disabled people don’t all function in the same way, and disability is not a set of stereotypes like taking selfies staring longingly at the world. They live lives while managing their energy for the activities they can handle and trying to make those they cannot more accessible.

Additionally, studies have shown that a majority of social media users show only the good in their lives, not the hardships or difficulties. Disabled people should be allowed to share the full scope of their existence without fear they’ll be accused of lying—and even fraud—by the United States Government which will likely reason that if a disabled person is seen going to the mall or taking time to swim or jog, they can be working.

The truth about disability is that it isn’t a series of down moments but both highs and lows that comprise the lives of the disabled. Simply because disabled people are seen exercising, dancing or shooting hoops does not mean that they have the ability to sustain that level of energy all day. This type of policy also plays upon the assumption that people with disabilities all function and move about in the world in the same way, which is entirely untrue. There are wheelchair users who can walk, people with cerebral palsy that can run and amputees that are bionic. It is just as dangerous to assume that disabled people should have to “overcome” their disabilities to do what they love as it is to assume there is nothing they want to do. One person’s body should never be considered a prescription for another.

Another thing that the general public does not understand about disability and the internet is that attention to disability issues often operates within an economy of "Inspiration Porn." Abled people often film, post, share and circulate photos and videos of disabled people doing extraordinary things as a litmus test to how “poor” life could be with a disability and how disabled people achieve “in spite of” their disabilities (quite often, this type of posting occurs without the disabled person’s permission). And, while many disability advocates disdain this type of media representation and are vocally calling for an end to inspiration porn, there’s a not-so-often talked about number of disabled people who play upon these stereotypes for their advocacy and to further their own quest for disability rights.

Quite often, in order for disabled people to be seen as needing help, nondisabled people need to see them as pitiful, helpless and ripe for a nondisabled person to swoop in and play hero. Without the ability to do so, a great many nondisabled people would not pay attention to disability issues. Disabled people know that, and it would appear the U.S. Government does as well. Public sympathies rarely side with disabled people who appear confident and comfortable in their own bodies. Therefore, there will be little outrage for cuts to disability benefits for active disabled people.

Aside from the cruelty it takes to cut necessary funds from a disabled person’s life because of a moment of activity, it seems willfully ignorant. Many in society already see disabled as “fakers” trying to take money from unsuspecting people, and this policy would only raise those tensions among the public. Disabled people are people, and as such, lead complex lives with ups and downs like the rest of the population. Relying upon a reductive narrative of disability is dangerous and will cost lives. Due to this, the administration should look inward and learn how to #BeBest.

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5368 on: April 13, 2019, 01:04:30 AM

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5369 on: April 14, 2019, 09:13:23 PM
Illinois Senate To Trump: Show Your Tax Returns Or Be Barred From The 2020 Ballot

Quote
The Democratic-led Illinois Senate voted Thursday to compel President Trump to release five years' worth of his personal income tax returns or be barred from appearing on the state's presidential ballot next year.

The state is joining a movement of other Democratic states that aims to force the president to open up his personal finances by releasing his tax returns, something he stubbornly has refused to do and reiterated again this week.

During contentious floor debate in the Illinois statehouse, Trump's name wasn't mentioned once by the legislation's sponsor, state Sen. Tony Munoz, a Chicago Democrat who insisted he merely is trying to shed more transparency on the presidential campaign.

"If you want to run for vice president or president of the United States, hey, what's wrong with providing your tax returns for the past five years?" Munoz asked his colleagues ahead of the Senate's 36-19 vote in favor of his bill.

"If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about anything," he continued. "That's how I see it."

Since before Trump was elected in 2016, Democrats have been trying to pressure him to release his tax returns in hopes of illuminating possible business relationships or sources of income from foreign powers, including Russia.

Last week, House Democrats in Washington made a formal demand to the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department for access to Trump's taxes, but a congressional deadline to produce the documents passed without action by Trump's administration.

Simultaneously, in New York state, Democrats in Albany have sought to work around the White House's intransigence on the issue by trying to gain access to Trump's state income tax returns.

The move in Illinois Thursday drew complaints from Republicans, who insisted the tax demand in order to qualify for the state ballot was unconstitutional and selectively avoided other officeholders, including the state's newly installed billionaire governor, Democrat JB Pritzker.

"This is quite frankly, with all due respect to the sponsor, an embarrassing waste of the Senate's time," said state Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, whose home county handed Trump 60 percent of the vote in 2016.

"This is being pushed by a far-leftist organization from the city of Chicago that wants to be able to get up and chirp about the president of the United States," Righter said. "We ought to be better than this."

Righter's reference was to several local affiliates of Indivisible, an anti-Trump organization. The Indivisible groups filed slips of support for Munoz's legislation ahead of Thursday's floor vote.

The measure now moves to the Illinois House, which like the Senate is heavily controlled by Democrats. Pritzker has not taken a public position on the bill.

Similar legislation is in play in 17 other statehouses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5370 on: April 16, 2019, 12:32:39 AM

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB



Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5372 on: April 16, 2019, 01:15:57 AM


#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #5373 on: April 16, 2019, 01:20:05 AM
Interior Dept. Opens Ethics Investigation of Its New Chief, David Bernhardt

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Interior Department’s internal watchdog has opened an investigation into ethics complaints against the agency’s newly installed secretary, David Bernhardt.

Mr. Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for the oil and agribusiness industries, was confirmed by the Senate last week to head the agency, which oversees the nation’s 500 million acres of public land and vast coastal waters. He has played a central role in writing policies designed to advance President Trump’s policy of “energy dominance” and expanding fossil fuel exploration. He has been dogged by allegations of ethics violations since joining the Trump administration as the Interior Department’s deputy secretary in 2017.

Eight senators, all Democrats, and four government ethics watchdog groups have requested that the Interior Department’s inspector general open formal investigations into various aspects of Mr. Bernhardt’s conduct. Among the chief complaints have been allegations, revealed by three separate New York Times investigations, that Mr. Bernhardt used his position to advance a policy pushed by his former lobbying client; that he continued working as a lobbyist after filing legal paperwork declaring that he had ceased lobbying; and that he intervened to block the release of a scientific report showing the harmful effects of a chemical pesticide on certain endangered species.

In a letter sent Monday to the senators who filed the ethics complaints, Mary L. Kendall, the deputy inspector general of the Interior Department, wrote that she had received seven complaints from “a wide assortment of complainants alleging various conflicts of interest and other violations” by Mr. Bernhardt, adding that she had “opened an investigation to address them.”

Mr. Bernhardt has maintained that he did not commit any ethical violations and, in fact, has worked to strengthen the culture of ethical compliance at the Interior Department, in part by hiring dozens of new ethics specialists.

Mr. Bernhardt’s spokeswoman, Faith Vander Voort, wrote in a statement, “Secretary Bernhardt is in complete compliance with his ethics agreement and all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.” She added, “It is important to note that the Department Ethics Office has already conducted a review of many of these accusations at Mr. Bernhardt’s request and determined that Secretary Bernhardt is in complete compliance.”

A spokesman for the White House declined to comment.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who has formally requested investigations into Mr. Bernhardt’s conduct, and who pushed for the delay of his Senate confirmation, wrote in a statement: “This is exactly why I wanted a delay in Bernhardt’s consideration. We now have an Interior Secretary who has been on the job for one full business day and is already under investigation.”

The inquiry into Mr. Bernhardt’s activities is the latest in a series of ethics concerns around Mr. Trump’s top energy and environment officials since the beginning of his administration. Mr. Trump’s first interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, and his first Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, both resigned last year amid allegations of ethics misconduct.

#Resist

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #5375 on: April 16, 2019, 03:49:25 AM
:roll:

Yeah, if the President can't award it to himself, what good are they?



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #5376 on: April 16, 2019, 05:46:39 AM
And now it seems that winning the Masters is sufficient reason to be awarded the Medal of Freedom.

The dilution of an award makes it meaningless.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline JulesVern

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 856
    • Woos/Boos: +51/-0
    • Gender: Male
Reply #5377 on: April 16, 2019, 06:24:10 AM
And now it seems that winning the Masters is sufficient reason to be awarded the Medal of Freedom.

The dilution of an award makes it meaningless.

I had the same thought myself. For winning a golf tournament? WTF? Not trying to diss Tiger here BTW... :-p



Offline Jed_

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 4,824
    • Woos/Boos: +413/-12
    • Gender: Male
  • I really am a demon that defiles helpless girls
    • Forbidden Forced Fantasy
Reply #5378 on: April 16, 2019, 03:22:46 PM
And now it seems that winning the Masters is sufficient reason to be awarded the Medal of Freedom.

The dilution of an award makes it meaningless.


I hadn’t heard that.  But then when you have a POTUS like this with priorities that only center around himself, his favorite pastime has elevated importance.



psiberzerker

  • Guest
Reply #5379 on: April 16, 2019, 03:50:10 PM
 :emot_weird: Wait, Goldfinger awarded the medal of freedom for Golf?