Well, the Drumpf administration sponsored a series of "March for Trump" rallies across this nation, and literally dozens of people showed up!
The largest, most spectacular rally ever. Believe me.
But what they lacked in size, they made up for in sheer horror.
Trump Supporters Call For 'Liberal Genocide' and Deportation of Jews at Arizona RallyMarch 9, 2017
Maricopa County burnished its reputation as the Trumpiest in America last weekend as hundreds of locals, including heavily armed militamen, white nationalists and even a few elected officials, gathered to support the 45th president.
"If she's Jewish, she should go back to her country," a 13-year-old Trump supporter said of a protester.
"This is America, we don't want Sharia law," one attendee explained. "Christian country," he added.
Quite right, sir! We do not want to live in a country whose laws are based on the Quaran. We want to live in a country governed by the Book of Leviticus! Less boning, more stoning I always say!
One man insisted that Senator John McCain was a "secret communist."
Oh, Senator McCain! Aren't you glad that you thrust Sarah Palin into the national spotlight and enabled and emboldened these cousin-fuckers? Aren't you proud?
"I think there's a lot there," another said of Pizzagate, a deranged right-wing conspiracy theory claiming that Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta ran a child prostitution ring out of a Washington, D.C. pizzeria. "Definitely enough to warrant an investigation."
I just want to let them know that I can't wait for the liberal genocide to begin," an Oath Keeper shouted at a small group of protesters. "That's the way to make America great again," he later told Cohen.
So I'm expecting someone from the Drumpf Administration to publicly condemn this sort of violent, eliminationist rhetoric any day now.
Oh, and this happened in Ohio, which used to be one of our saner states:
Wait, that can't possibly be right, can it?
Ohio bill to make marital rape illegal gets no support from state RepublicansLoophole means prosecutors seeking rape convictions must prove 'force or the threat of force' if a spouse is attacked
And if you think that maybe there's something you're missing, some reason why anyone would not support an anti-rape bill, some sort of "law of unintended consequences" sort of thing, just read this response to the posting of this article on Tumblr (http://iammyfather.tumblr.com/post/158174451683/bill-to-outlaw-marital-rape-gets-no-support-from) :
A proposed that would make it illegal for husbands to drug and rape their wives has found no backers among Republicans in Ohio.
The bill is the second introduced by Democrat state representative Greta Johnson to address the “unacceptable” loophole in Ohio that means prosecutors must prove there was “force or the threat of force” for a sexual attack by a husband or wife to be considered rape.
Cases in which the spouse is drugged do not qualify for , Ms Johnson said.
SO you support a bill that would allow any woman to claim a man drugged her and raped her (keeping in mind women already have numerous advantages when it comes to making accusations), creating a scenario where it would be virtually impossible for any man to adequately defend himself, but would then get to go to Family Court with the word “rapist” hanging around his head?
No, seriously, how does one defend against such an accusation?
Her: “He gave me wine and then we had sex…”
Him: “Well, that’s true you’re honor, but we’ve had date nights for the past fifteen years…”
Judge: “That will be 20 years in prison for you, fucking rapist, and now she owns everything you’ve ever earned.”
You: *smugly nods* “Justice is done.”
Me, not a fucking psychopath:
Because, from what I can see on the internet, there are a lot of men out there who sincerely believe that women just go around making false rape accusations all the time, whenever a man pisses them off, and the justice system just takes these women at their word and jails the men who have been falsely accused instead of what actually happens, which is pretty much the exact opposite.
Oh, a sitting Congressman directly threatened the free press.
House Intelligence chair tells press to be 'careful': 'Do you want us to investigate you?
Because there's nothing fascisty at all about threatening the fourth estate.
How delightfully Cheney-esque!
House Intelligence Committee Chairman—and Trump transition team member—Rep. David Nunes (R-CA) gave a press gaggle Thursday a not so subtle warning to the press about pursuing the Trump-Russia connections.
"I'm sure some of you are in contact with the Russian embassy so be careful what you ask for here, because if we get —if we start getting transcripts of any of you or other Americans talking to the press, then we can, do you want us to conduct an investigation on you or other Americans because you were talking to the Russian embassy? I just think we need to be careful."
Hey, you better not do any reporting on Russia or we'll fire up the old HUAC machine so fast, it'll make your head spin!
Rep. Devin Nunes says the Intelligence Committee won't look into discussions between Trump and Flynn, citing executive privilege— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 14, 2017
Executive privilege, which wouldn't apply since the contacts between the Russians and administration officials took place prior to Drumpf taking office. And also, the Administration would be the one to claim executive privilege, not Congress. You can't claim executive privilege on behalf of the executive. That's like a prosecutor claiming attorney-client privilege on behalf of the accused. It makes no sense.