Abundant Warmth
In a way that is needed for prosperity of the masses
Keywords | Title View | Refer to a Friend |
Suicide: Will trump execute himself?
Posted:Jan 19, 2021 9:49 am
Last Updated:Feb 12, 2021 6:57 am

Suicide: Will trump execute himself?
This week
This month
This year
15 Comments , 6 votes
Beware of White Men with US Flags
Posted:Jan 9, 2021 9:37 am
Last Updated:Jan 17, 2021 7:02 am
It is sad see the the flag of the United States of America be used as a symbol of patriotism in such an egregious manner.

As a patriot you should have a grasp of fundamental concepts about the US flag, yes? One of those concepts being the US code that protects our great symbol:
U.S. Code Title 4—Flag and Seal...

Basically the code surrounding the US flag is that you fly it . (see below)
Using the flag as clothing, altering it trumpify , etc ... show that you are actually not in any sense a patriot.

4 U.S. Code § 8.Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a)The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger life or property.
(b)The flag should never touch anything beneath , such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
(c)The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
(d)The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. should never be festooned, drawn back, nor , in folds, but always allowed fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
(e)The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(f)The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
(g)The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
(h)The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
(i)The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
(j)No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
(k)The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

trump gives it to Cleta Mitchell up the ass
Posted:Jan 6, 2021 7:37 am
Last Updated:Jan 6, 2021 5:35 pm
From the now infamous January 2nd phone call, Cleta Mitchell says:
"why wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest get the bottom"

Well Cleta, giving your bottom to trump leads to a less than positive feeling. And with that, you are now not dissimilar to so many others that trump has sadly hastened the demise of

Cleta Mitchell has informed firm management of her decision to resign from Foley & Lardner effective immediately ...Ms. Mitchell concluded that her departure was in the firm’s best interests
trump is directly responsible for the deaths of half the folks we have lost to COVID-19
Posted:Dec 24, 2020 3:46 pm
Last Updated:Jan 16, 2021 6:59 am
Empathy the trump has for such zero. Loser of the year indeed!
trump vs. democracy: It’s now come to this!
Posted:Nov 12, 2020 11:23 am
Last Updated:Dec 17, 2020 7:09 am
This is not the way Presidents behave.

These are the actions of a desperate dictator clinging to power against the will of his people.

This is not a game. It’s trump vs. USA

trump’s post-election delusion and denial is getting more ominous by the day. trump and his sycophants — which, most distressingly, include a majority of Republican senators and House members — are either parroting unfounded claims of widespread election fraud or allowing them to seep deeper into the public consciousness through cowardly silence. President-elect Joe Biden not only is being denied federal funding for the transition, he is not being given access to the Presidential Daily Briefing. trump is performing a purge at the top levels of the Department of Defense for who-knows-what endgame. He is crying about a “stolen election” even as the courts are rejecting his empty claims, and even though Biden has defeated him by a significantly larger margin than trump enjoyed over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

It has quickly become clear that the lawsuits (the trump campaign has) filed are at worst frivolous and at best challenging small numbers of ballots that won’t change the outcome. Top Republicans have nonetheless gone well beyond the evidence to falsely and irresponsibly suggest that the winner is in doubt.

How long will it be before other Republican leaders put country before party and confront trump with reality?

trump, you are dividing and damaging our democracy.
trump poll watchers: how many will be arrested today?
Posted:Nov 3, 2020 6:12 am
Last Updated:Nov 7, 2020 10:13 am
How many from the trump intimidation squad will be arrested today?
trump is popular with whom?
Posted:Oct 23, 2020 8:39 am
Last Updated:Oct 30, 2020 10:43 am
The frustrated males of the Adult Dating Zone?
Folks that could not comprehend the question?
Self identified capitalists?
How is the approval number even at 42%?
Happy Indigenous Peoples Day
Posted:Oct 12, 2020 8:07 am
Last Updated:Nov 25, 2020 2:38 pm
...hug someone with heritage deeper than your own
trump Garners Darwin Award for Getting COVID
Posted:Oct 2, 2020 9:06 am
Last Updated:Dec 28, 2020 6:31 am
The question that remains is:
Will trump succumb before being able to attend the ceremony ?

Since Hitler, no one had more folks wishing for their imminent demise than trump has today.
trump is Building the Most Visible Symbol of a Failed State
Posted:Sep 28, 2020 12:24 pm
Last Updated:Sep 29, 2020 4:37 pm
Jonathan V. Last of the Bulwark has laid out a nightmare scenario regarding the Supreme Court: If President Donald J. trump appoints a conservative justice, that justice gets confirmed, and then in a few months that justice is asked rule the election of Donald J. trump remain the president: huge nightmare. Saturday, trump is expected nominate conservative 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Amy Coney Barrett fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat the high bench. The rest of the nightmare coming true is not implausible.

Last joined The Gist Thursday (before Barrett was reported as trump’s pick) discuss the -too-possible bleak future he lays out in his piece and what may or may not be done to prevent it. A portion of our interview is transcribed below; it has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

Mike Pesca: When you wrote this piece about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court just a couple of days ago, it was premised on ways that mostly Republicans—either in the Federalist Society or in the Senate—can thwart what now seems clear to be an eventuality: a Republican Senate taking up a potential justice nominated by Donald J. trump. Is it too late to avoid this nightmare scenario?

Jonathan V. Last: It’s never too late until it happens. So I wrote that piece just a couple hours after the word broke that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed on. And it was not clear that [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell would have the votes then. And it was not if you remember for the first hour or so, it wasn’t even really clear that Republicans would do this. It wasn’t clear that they would push ahead.

Once it was signaled that they would push ahead, it wasn’t clear that maybe they wouldn’t just announce a nominee, but then [just] say this is who the nominee is, and we’ll let the voters decide. And by Tuesday morning this week I believe McConnell claimed to have had the votes for it. We heard that Martha McSally and Cory Gardner were going to be two fists in on this; Mitt Romney was going to be in. [Lisa] Murkowski and [Susan] Collins were going to be against, to try to protect [Collins’] Maine seat.

If you wanted to try hard to be optimistic about it, the only thing you could say is, “Well, this would be better than doing it in a lame duck session after they lose the Senate and the White House.” That would have been worse. But that’s as close as you get to optimism. It’s really bad. It’s bad for everybody. It’s going to be bad for whoever the nominee is. It’s going to be bad for the institution of the Supreme Court. It’s going to be bad for everyone in America who wants a system of government that is capable of functioning in a reasonably competent and coherent way over the long term.

So I’ll relay to my listeners the key sentence in your piece: “If trump and Republicans replace Ginsburg, it will destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court.” Full stop. I wonder if this is true in an election case, in the case of Donald J. trump v. Joe Biden, or Donald J. trump v. the United States, or Donald J. trump v. Florida. But will the court be destroyed if the court isn’t asked to rule on the election of trump?

I think so. Yeah. I mean, there is “more destroyed” and “less destroyed,” right? It’s a sliding scale. This morning the piece is out in the Atlantic where Barton Gellman has spoken to some legal advisers connected to the trump campaign, one of which tells him the following. This is a quote: “The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate. So here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state.’ ”

What he’s talking about is sending a different slate of electors to the Electoral College in battleground states where Republicans control the state legislature. If we wind up in a Bush v. Gore, but instead a trump v. Biden–type situation, [that] is the most likely scenario for the Supreme Court having to rule on it.

If that’s where we are, then we’re already a failed state. I mean, if you get to the point where the president of the United States is telling state legislatures controlled by his party to send competing sets of electors to the Electoral College, and you have two groups of people showing up demanding that they’re the real people representing Wisconsin, or the real people representing Florida, this is not what happens in stable democracies. It simply isn’t.

If it doesn’t come to that—if Joe Biden appears to win by so much on Election Day, maybe this won’t even be a available them. If they think they have the votes in the legislatures of Michigan and Pennsylvania, but turn out not , maybe this won’t happen. If it’s close enough for the trump administration or a trump campaign pursue suits, but the lower courts smack them down regularly and don’t agree with them, maybe we avoid that, too, right? Maybe we avoid the court having to rule on this. In that case, what does that say about the legitimacy of the court or if we are living in a failed state?

Yeah, well, in that case, we’re not at failed-state levels. We’re merely at a level where the Supreme Court is going to come to be regarded just like every other branch of government. Which compared with the failed state thing sounds pretty attractive. You’d say, “Wow, it could be worse.” But it’s not attractive. It’s not attractive at .

We’ve done this weird thing over the years where we have really altered the balance of power constitutionally. We’ve expanded the power of the executive branch, we’ve expanded the power of the judicial branch, and [we’ve] shrunk the power of the legislative branch. Which is probably pretty bad for us long term. But even as that’s happened, the judicial branch has still been regarded pretty widely as being legitimate. People look at it and they say, “OK, I may not like this ruling. I may think that I would like this ruling be changed at some point, but at least I’m going respect that this ruling is the law of the land.” And it has been arrived at by a legitimate manner.

“If there is a 5 percent chance that America could wind like Hungary, that’s a big f–––ing deal.” — Jonathan V. Last

And what Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans have done here is really just break that. I don’t think there’s any other way say that. And be very clear if they had voted Merrick Garland and then decided vote this nominee now, I think that would basically be fine. If they had taken the tack they took Garland and not held a vote and then not held a vote now, that would have been fine. You can make constitutional arguments for one of those eventualities over the other as being preferable, but so long as there some basic consistency, you could say, “OK, this might be suboptimal, but it’s not the end of the world.” Doing this with a swing seat [though], the only remedy winds being a wholesale reform of the court. And reforming the court just because we live in the worst of possible timelines is likely take the form of attempted reforms, which will continue escalate the problem.

And this is why the idea of expanding the court by another, what, justices or justices—however many more justices you want put —I think winds continuing down the very dangerous road that we’re on. And the much better way would be find a mechanism which would allow us de-emphasize the importance of the court, make it less of a flashpoint and make it so that we don’t have have total war every time there’s a Supreme Court nomination.

And the obvious answer for that, I think, is to regularize the terms—so the Supreme Court terms are 18 years. You have a regular schedule; this way even a two-term president doesn’t get to have a majority of appointees on the court at any one time. But I’ve given up on hoping that anything good can ever happen in the world we live in.

Well that’s good; that at least protects yourself.

When we talk about the legitimacy of the court, Gallup last did polling in 2019. So what they ask is “how much trust and confidence do you have in”—and they go through the different branches. So the executive branch in 2019 polled at cumulative 55 percent expressing not much or no confidence at all in the executive branch. The legislative branch, 61 percent no confidence at all or not much confidence in the legislative branch, deservedly I would say. The judicial branch was at only 31 percent no confidence. They were at 69 percent having a great deal of confidence or a fair amount of confidence.
So if it becomes seen as illegitim what does that really mean? Does that mean that the judicial branch numbers become the legislative branch numbers? Does that mean something other than the perception of the average American? Or does that mean, even if people don’t have confidence, as in the president and the legislature, both those branches still have the means execute their policy.

But the courts and the Supreme Court are fairly dependent, not just the perception of legitimacy, but on the perception of the other two branches of their legitimacy. Otherwise we get into the situation where it’s, “Mr. Taney has made his ruling; now let us see him enforce it.”

Yeah. I think that’s right. And we’ve already seen this with the legislative branch. Look at the way the trump administration has just simply refused to comply with directives from the legislature, right? Refusing to send witnesses and then saying, “well how are you going to do that? You’re going to have the sergeant of arms go and rouse people off the street and bring them in testify?”

Why wouldn’t you wind at a point where the Supreme Court could make a ruling, and the chief executive who happens also be the commander in chief could then say, “No, we’re not going do that.” Would you put that past Donald trump? I sure wouldn’t. And legitimacy is one of these things that sounds like just this gauzy, gooey abstraction, and you don’t really understand how important it is until it’s gone, because it’s the foundation of everything. It is the consent of the governed.

And once it goes away, you can’t put it back together again. I talk about us as a failed st and we’re not yet. It’s important say that this is—I’m catastrophizing a little bit only because I’m looking down the road say that you can see how this happens. And even if you don’t think it’s likely happen, you look at it and you say, “Look, we are unlikely wind like Hungary.” [But] if there is a 5 percent chance that America could wind like Hungary, that’s a big fucking deal.


This is a state of affairs that we have not had in America in 0 years. go from a 0 percent chance a 2 percent or a 5 percent chance should scare the living crap out of everybody.
Frustrated with your efforts to get 'laid'? ...trump ladies are your salvation
Posted:Sep 8, 2020 12:14 pm
Last Updated:Jan 10, 2021 10:18 am
Gentlemen are you frustrated with your efforts getting laid? (common parlance intended)
Your salvation lies with ladies that support trump.
Simply impersonate being a trump supporter. (the gain will outweigh your pain)
How does this work so easily and how do I execute it, you ask?:
1) as trump ladies are subservient, they will easily bend towards your will
2) best pickings are at counter-protests currently
3) these events get their pheromones flowing
4) your best Friend Finder game will actually be enough for your triumph in this quest
5) bring your best rage and with no doubt you will lure one into your cage
Enjoy and you are welcome
Cavet: the trump supporters have a leg up on you, so if need be study some lexicon

trump on the Losers and Suckers
Posted:Sep 6, 2020 11:05 am
Last Updated:Dec 31, 2020 7:31 am

There is no question that saying such is within his wheelhouse

Amazingly the losers and suckers, would loose and suck again for the trump be able utter such
First Amendment Freedom?
Shit Hole trump?
Hater in Chief
25 Comments , 47 votes
trump Takes Cookies Away From All US Citizens
Posted:Sep 2, 2020 8:59 am
Last Updated:Sep 3, 2020 6:26 am
A tradition for almost three decades, the Family Circle magazine first lady cookie contest is no more.

Family Circle, a publication founded in 1932 and dedicated the domestic arts, went out of business late last year, ending one of the more famous election-cycle competitions for hopeful first spouses. Since 1992, first lady cookie recipes from incumbent and potential presidential spouses have been pitted against one another, tasted, and voted on by Family Circle readers. Though a playful polling indicator, the competition has successfully predicted the presidential winner in five out of the last seven election cycles.

The most recent first spouse cookie contest, in 2016, was not accurate. Melania trump's recipe for star-shaped cookies -- featuring the controversial ingredient of sour cream -- was bested by Bill Clinton's "Clinton Family Chocolate Chip Cookies." (The addition of Bill Clinton to the "first lady" mix forced the -change of the contest the "Presidential Cookie Poll.")

The 2016 challenge was held by Family Circle on its page, where the Clinton recipe received 1,623 likes and hearts, while trump's cookie received 535, according to a statement at the time from the magazine shortly after the recipes posted. The Clinton cookie stayed ahead of Melania trump's cookie, leading by about a 3:1 ratio, during the entirety of the six-week voting period.

The Washington Post was first to report the end of the competition.

In 2012, Michelle Obama's recipe for chocolate and white chocolate chip cookies beat Ann Romney's M&M cookies, but Obama's previous recipe in 2008 for a shortbread cookie lost to Cindy McCain's butterscotch oatmeal treats.

It could perhaps be stated it was more than past time for the cookie competition to burn out. Most first spouses have come into the role of first lady with impressive career credentials, and soliciting baking tips feels antiquated, if not downright out of touch. However, the irony of the origin of the competition, which began in earnest in 1992, came out of a comment from Hillary Clinton, was defending her work as a lawyer. "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided do was fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life," said Clinton, a quippy statement that would have a ripple-effect across the country, pitting stay-at-home spouses against those work.

Later that fall, on the cusp of the election, Clinton's sweet revenge was her cookies beating those of Barbara Bush, in a chocolate chip versus chocolate chip face-off.
No word on which cookie recipe Jill Biden would have submitted had the contest still been in the works. Biden told Parade magazine in February she wasn't much into sweets anyway, adding, "I love French fries!"

To link to this blog (nosnowforme) use [blog nosnowforme] in your messages.

65 F
January 2021
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Recent Visitors

Visitor Age Sex Date
Mikaeldemar 63M3/4
offbeat4fun 65M3/3
TallMaryJo 55T3/2
bclooking2 69/67C3/1
whitehair73 74M2/27
Athos_131 47M2/27
oregon69guy 51M2/26
resqu206 68M2/26
davedoes68 52M2/23
tonne1956  64M2/22