Well we're not married (yet), but one time my boyfriend playfully spanked me. Hard. I know he didn't mean to hurt me, but I was mad about it all. Day. Long. I just couldn't get over the fact that he technically hit me! I started to consider things like, "Is he really sorry?" "Will he do it again?" "Should I leave him?" And gave myself reasons like "He didn't mean to!" "He's been apologizing all day!" "He was just playing!" "He meant to have fun, He's sorry!" Yet countered it with one simple statement, "Yeah that's what all abused women say." In the end, I felt the question that should determine whether or not I should leave is: "If I stop talking to him tomorrow and can never see him or speak to him again, will I be okay with that?" and the answer was "No", so obviously I shouldn't leave him. He is very well aware that I was considering leaving him, (I have a very strict 0 tolerance policy of abuse in my relationships, as I was abused terribly growing up,) and he still apologizes to this day, but he has certainly made it a point to never do that again. I definitely trust him, and he actually was being playful, but otherwise that has been the only "real" hitch we have come across. I mean, we argue, but that's only when either of us are mad, and it's usually over small stupid stuff. Like, really stupid stuff. We argued over traffic signs before, LOL. It always leads to me saying the argument is completely retarded and we drop it and just cuddle or something. Really not worth getting worked up about. Edit: Fixed some typos. I'm on my phone so my thumbs can't quite reach LOL. The boyfriend probably thought that the writer would do what? A. Leave him. B. Tell everyone what he did. C. not enough information D. Call the police.
A

The U.S. State Department has asked American embassies and consulates around the world to identify certain groups that should get extra scrutiny when they apply for visas. A series of directives also instructs U.S. diplomatic posts overseas to review the social media accounts of visa applicants who are suspected of terrorist ties or of having been in Islamic State group-controlled areas. The diplomatic cables sent by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson directed embassies to convene security and intelligence working groups to determine criteria for "population sets" that would warrant increased scrutiny before traveling to the U.S. Even if the applicant otherwise qualifies for a visa, those identified as meeting the criteria would require additional scrutiny, leading to a possible visa denial. It is the first evidence of a plan for the "extreme vetting" of foreigners entering the United States that President Donald Trump promised during his campaign. The four cables sent between March 10 and March 17 do not define which groups would be considered among the "population sets" requiring more scrutiny. But in the first glimpse into what "extreme vetting" may look like under the Trump administration, one of Tillerson's memos would have added to the interview process questions about an applicant's workplaces, employers, addresses and travel history going back 15 years, as well as all email addresses and social media handles used in the last five years. The questions were withdrawn in a following memo, pending approval of the list by another federal agency. The directives, first reported by Reuters, quickly drew criticism from rights groups and others who've accused Trump of discriminating against Muslims through his now-suspended ban on travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. "These measures could provide license for discrimination based on national origin and religion,'' human rights group Amnesty International wrote in a letter to Tillerson on Thursday. "They... How long would it probably take to do the extra vetting A. a year B. not enough information C. a month D. several weeks
C

WHITE HOUSE President Donald Trump on Monday declared he has an "absolute right" to pardon himself and then also tweeted his assertion that the federal government investigation into ties between his 2016 election campaign and Russia is "totally unconstitutional." While Trump has frequently ignored established norms and challenged the understood limits of presidential powers, his latest comments are viewed by some legal scholars as unprecedented and testing constitutional boundaries. "I was shocked" by Trump's tweets, said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University. "No president has ever tried it," she told VOA News. "It's unlikely the president can pardon himself. I think the court would say no" and if he did give himself a pardon, "most congresses would impeach him." Bloch also notes when most people accept a pardon "it's an admission of guilt," thus it would be a bad idea for Trump to pursue such a course of action. The professor, who has testified before the Senate on whether a president can be indicted and tried while in office, says the special counsel is "absolutely constitutional." Another constitutional scholar, Keith Whittington at Princeton University, said, "I think it is important to note that the president's comments reference serious arguments that are being debated by legal scholars, but these are difficult and unusual constitutional questions that would ultimately be answered in the courts." According to Northwestern University Law Professor Andrew Koppelman, "Trump's position on pardons is consistent with the Constitution's text, but inconsistent with the overall structure. It means that the President could commit capital treason, or any other federal crime, and then immediately pardon himself. "It means that he could commit murder in the White House," Koppelman said. "It makes no sense within the Constitution as a whole." Asked by reporters Monday about Trump's comment on his ability to pardon himself, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders repeatedly replied: "The... After Sarah Sanders was asked about Trump's comments, what does she probably still believe? A. Trump has not committed a crime. B. not enough information C. Trump's campaign was tied to Russia D. Self Pardon is illegal
A