Off Topic - ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP - Forum

" Xavderion wrote: " Turtledove wrote: snip You said, and I quote, "Obstruction of Justice is prosecuted all the time without there being an underlying crime". So far you couldn't provide evidence of that, because there isn't any. Without an underlying crime, an obstruction case is weak as fuck and pretty much no prosecutor would want to go through with it. All you got is some legal scholars talking about what would maybe be possible in theory. That's like a theoretical physicist talking about how it's possible that there are endless amounts of parallel universes, and in one of those TDS_Reporter is actually a reasonable person. I mean, it's possible in theory, but it's still worthless if we're talking about everyday reality. I know that you aren't interested in reality when it doesn't fit your desires. Rather than quibbling with you as to what "all the time" could mean, here's this. The Washington Post article mentioned 2 or 3 instances of obstruction of justice in the past year or so that were successfully prosecuted without there being an underlying crime. And the two more well known cases mentioned in politicfact that are older cases. Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired! Last edited by Turtledove#4014 on May 2, 2019, 5:35:02 PM	Posted by Turtledove#4014 on May 2, 2019, 5:33:12 PM Quote this Post
" Turtledove wrote: I know that you aren't interested in reality when it doesn't fit your desires. Rather than quibbling with you as to what "all the time" could mean, here's this. The Washington Post article mentioned 2 or 3 instances of obstruction of justice in the past year or so that were successfully prosecuted without there being an underlying crime. And the two more well known cases mentioned in politicfact that are older cases. I read the article, all of the examples had underlying crimes. 2 examples had perjury and 1 example had a guy who assisted a murder get immunity and then the dude refused to testify despite immunity. All the Politifake examples had perjury and the Martha Stewart one also had conspiracy. You gotta deal with the reality that people don't get convicted of obstruction if they don't do any other crimes. 1 in a million chance at best. All the fake news couldn't find a single example and I bet they tried really hard lmao. GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Posted by Xavderion#3432 on May 2, 2019, 5:42:21 PM Quote this Post
" Xavderion wrote: " Turtledove wrote: I know that you aren't interested in reality when it doesn't fit your desires. Rather than quibbling with you as to what "all the time" could mean, here's this. The Washington Post article mentioned 2 or 3 instances of obstruction of justice in the past year or so that were successfully prosecuted without there being an underlying crime. And the two more well known cases mentioned in politicfact that are older cases. I read the article, all of the examples had underlying crimes. 2 examples had perjury and 1 example had a guy who assisted a murder get immunity and then the dude refused to testify despite immunity. All the Politifake examples had perjury and the Martha Stewart one also had conspiracy. You gotta deal with the reality that people don't get convicted of obstruction if they don't do any other crimes. 1 in a million chance at best. All the fake news couldn't find a single example and I bet they tried really hard lmao. They do, I will believe the news articles WAY before I'll believe the nonsense that you spew. Perhaps, what you seem to be missing is that generally the law officers don't go out to investigate Obstruction of Justice. More often they run across it while doing other investigations. Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!	Posted by Turtledove#4014 on May 2, 2019, 5:52:14 PM Quote this Post
" Turtledove wrote: They do, I will believe the news articles WAY before I'll believe the nonsense that you spew. You apparently can't read because that's what the news articles say. There were underlying crimes. " Turtledove wrote: Perhaps, what you seem to be missing is that generally the law officers don't go out to investigate Obstruction of Justice. More often they run across it while doing other investigations. Not sure how this is relevant. No underlying crime = no obstruction. You can't produce evidence to the contrary. And even if you could, it would be a one in a million. What happened to "all the time"? GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.	Posted by Xavderion#3432 on May 2, 2019, 6:20:05 PM Quote this Post
" Boem wrote: Thoughts on Venezuela anybody? They fucked themselves up voting for socialists that nationalized the main industry (oil), bet really big on it, took out a ton of loans and paid off the population with bread and circuses, and are now completely without a functioning economy after their big bet went the wrong way. Even if Guaido overthrows Maduro, his policies are not dissimilar enough to matter. The people of Venezuela are going to need to force themselves through severe austerity and whoring themselves out to international investors for decades to unfuck their situation. And as for Maduro himself, he's no longer listening to their Parliament and is in obvious dereliction. It's a shame that he won't step down peacefully, but tinpot dictators like that never do. The only language they speak is the sword. It's going to be very hard for the people of Venezuela to oust him. They were disarmed eight years ago ("sensible gun control, to cut back on crimes") so they're throwing rocks at dudes in armored vests with rifles. It's going to be much bloodier than it otherwise could have been as a result, but the people have no choice. " Boem wrote: Should America help or watch on the side-line, thoughts on what trump will do? At the moment, we've announced plans to start sanctioning Cuba if they step in to help Maduro, and they appear to respect the threat. Ideally this would be an inner conflict with the USA/Lima Group standing on the sidelines as referees. We see the footage of people getting shot in the streets and run over with tanks and it's still not quite enough to force our hand. We've seen the Venezuelans eating cats and starving and that wasn't enough to force our hand. I think that we've changed since the Middle East and are getting a lot colder toward humanitarian/world-police missions. That being said, Russia and China are obviously going to get themselves involved. They were counterparty to many of the loans that Chavez took out, and they want their fucking money. They are invested in keeping whatever familiar power structure existing that can continue writing them checks to pay off the interest on the loans. As soon as Russia sends troops in to assist Maduro, it stops becoming an inner conflict and might quickly turn into a proxy war. Definitely read up on the Monroe Doctrine, if you haven't recently. Let's hope that the Russians can be stopped from escalating; that Guaido doesn't come into power on the promise that they're going to default on the loans. Last edited by pneuma#0134 on May 2, 2019, 6:35:25 PM	Posted by pneuma#0134 on May 2, 2019, 6:33:06 PM Alpha Member Quote this Post
" Raycheetah wrote: https://youtu.be/oOQcbtJRNSY?t=62 I don't think your link is particularly relevant; Weinstein does mention redefinition in passing but my focus is not on the term "racism" being used as a cudgel to beat enemies with, but on the redefinition of "racism" to make it not a cudgel to beat a certain type of racism — that is, discrimination between people on the basis of race. For example, Google currently defines racism as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Note that it leaves a loophole: as long as you do NOT believe your own race is superior, you're allowed to discriminate based on race as much as you like without being a racist. Notably, a person who believes equality of outcome is justice can't be racist under this definition, no matter how much they discriminate on the basis of race. Merriam-Webster is even worse. Not only does it define racism in definition 1a as "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," but definition 2b is "a political system founded on racism" — meaning that the United States as established by its Constitution is and always will be racist, no matter what it does to attempt to redeem itself — insurrection indeed, Dr. Weinstein. Only by definition 3 do we even get to the behavioral practice of discrimination! I reject all of these new, activist redefinitions of racism. To me, racism is, and always will be, discrimination on the basis of race, period, no exceptions, no "communists get out of racism free" cards. What I see coming from the left is a constant, disgusting stream of racism, sexism etc, racism made socially acceptable by their twisting of language — that is, "loophole" racism. And the trap is obvious: if someone actually engages these people in civil disagreement, they're going to be talking about race, and if they then dare suggest that equality of outcome might not be the goal — bam! instant "racist." It's okay when they do it, but as soon as you do, you're a Nazi. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 2, 2019, 7:01:29 PM	Posted by ScrotieMcB#2697 on May 2, 2019, 6:54:31 PM Quote this Post
" ScrotieMcB wrote: Greetings, comrades. As you probably already know, I am the ghost of Karl Marx. My lecture today will be on using identity politics to implement global communism. As I'm sure you've noticed, Americans are highly resistant to the concept of equality of outcome, a concept central to the utopia we will bring about. This resistance is because they believe in the illusion of free will rather than the reality of determinism. They see one man make a greater effort than another and delude themselves into thinking the man who made the greater effort chose to be more responsible, and therefore deserves more than the person who chose otherwise. I understand you have tried to remedy this problem by directly arguing that a person's "merit" is merely a deterministic condition of the circumstances of nature and nurture, but the Americans cling stubbornly to the ideologies of self-determination. But I am here to tell you that you don't need to fight that battle. You can choose to avoid it entirely. Even the most zealous false prophet of free will will admit there are certain states of human affairs that follow our deterministic model. One cannot choose what race or ethnicity they are born into. One cannot choose what gender one is born into. Using those characteristics, we can divide people into different groups in the minds of Americans, groups defined by membership one cannot choose to accept and cannot choose to decline. As this strategy progresses, we can slowly add more such groups, as the Americans begin to see the truth that no membership can be accepted or declined, and all is deterministic — but at first, they will only accept groups based on those characteristics most obviously deterministic. The next phase is to elevate the importance of the these groups. Make the American black man define himself by his blackness, and all traits he foolishly considers to be free will to be secondary. Make the American woman define herself by her sex, and all traits she foolishly considers to be free will to be secondary. Shift the focus off all things not obviously deterministic, and onto all that which obviously is. The last step almost completes itself: make them accept equality of outcome not on an individual level, but on a group level. Whether one is white or black is not based on any choice the person made; therefore, the white group should have the same average outcome as the black group. Implement racist and sexist discrimination against whomever happens to be winning, and in favor of whomever happens to be losing. Go ahead and let them play at meritocracy within any particular identity group, but viciously attack the idea of a meritocracy that encompasses multiple groups simultaneously. If one group receives a better outcome than another, force that group to give until all the groups are equal. In this way you'll quickly achieve a rough equality of outcome, imperfect but perfectable. From then on it's just about eroding the remaining vestiges of the myth of merit, as a piece of sandpaper might smooth a surface of freshly cut wood. Identity politics is the saw that makes that first cut. This is the way forward, comrades. We must embrace the racism of equality. I just fell in love with you all over again. There are two types of POE players: 1) Those who want to walk uphill both ways barefoot on broken glass wearing a blindfold 2) F*cking noobs I identify as transnational Chinese. May I have access to their QOL features, please?	Posted by Makillda#0245 on May 2, 2019, 6:55:31 PM Quote this Post
" ScrotieMcB wrote: " Raycheetah wrote: https://youtu.be/oOQcbtJRNSY?t=62 I don't think your link is particularly relevant; Weinstein does mention redefinition in passing but my focus is not on the term "racism" being used as a cudgel to beat enemies with, but on the redefinition of "racism" to make it not a cudgel to beat a certain type of racism — that is, discrimination between people on the basis of race. For example, Google currently defines racism as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Note that it leaves a loophole: as long as you do NOT believe your own race is superior, you're allowed to discriminate based on race as much as you like without being a racist. Notably, a person who believes equality of outcome is justice can't be racist under this definition, no matter how much they discriminate on the basis of race. Merriam-Webster is even worse. Not only does it define racism in definition 1a as "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," but definition 2b is "a political system founded on racism" — meaning that the United States as established by its Constitution is and always will be racist, no matter what it attempts to attempt to redeem itself — insurrection indeed, Dr. Weinstein. Only by definition 3 do we even get to the behavioral practice of discrimination. I reject all of these new, activist redefinitions of racism. To me, racism is discrimination on the basis of race, period, no exceptions, no "communists get out of racism free" cards. What I see coming from the left is a constant, disgusting stream of racism sexism etc, racism made socially acceptable by their twisting of language, "loophole" racism. And the trap is obvious: if someone actually engages these people in civil disagreement, they're going to be talking about race, and if they then dare suggest that equality of outcome might not be the goal — bam! instant "racist." It's okay when they do it, but as soon as you do, you're a Nazi. Stahp. I only have so much love in my heart and you're taking all of it. There are two types of POE players: 1) Those who want to walk uphill both ways barefoot on broken glass wearing a blindfold 2) F*cking noobs I identify as transnational Chinese. May I have access to their QOL features, please?	Posted by Makillda#0245 on May 2, 2019, 6:58:48 PM Quote this Post
A bit of fun: " The Quest For the Holy Grail vs. Donald Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXjPA2Dk2OE =^[.]^= =^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/ whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled / =-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =[.]= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie	Posted by Raycheetah#7060 on May 2, 2019, 10:30:56 PM Alpha Member Quote this Post
" Xavderion wrote: " Turtledove wrote: They do, I will believe the news articles WAY before I'll believe the nonsense that you spew. You apparently can't read because that's what the news articles say. There were underlying crimes. " Turtledove wrote: Perhaps, what you seem to be missing is that generally the law officers don't go out to investigate Obstruction of Justice. More often they run across it while doing other investigations. Not sure how this is relevant. No underlying crime = no obstruction. You can't produce evidence to the contrary. And even if you could, it would be a one in a million. What happened to "all the time"? Your delusional desire to believe the lies of a pathological liar is amazingly strong! Those articles prove that your assertion of "no underlying crime = no obstruction" is just false. Those articles explicitly state the opposite of what you assert. There are many other available for reference also that say the same thing. They say that in those examples there are NOT underlying crimes. They also say that an underlying crime is not required to be able to successfully prosecute an obstruction of justice case. Obstruction of justice means obstructing the legal process. A legal process is either a trial or a criminal investigation. A classical obstruction of justice case would be someone committing a crime and then lying to police or threatening witnesses in their trial for that crime. What can also happen though is that the person did not commit a crime but they interfere in the legal process anyway. Maybe they want to protect someone else or maybe they are afraid that some embarrassing but legal facts might be revealed. Like the fellow that lied to cover up an affair. The only law broken was him lying to cover up the affair. Where is the underlying crime in that case? (as just one example) Or the case where the fellow obstructed justice just to help a friend? In proving an obstruction of justice case it must be proven that the obstruction was done out of corrupt intent. Meaning that the person wanted to get in the way of the legal process from getting to the truth. The articles mention when there is no underlying crime that proving corrupt intent can sometimes be more difficult. Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!	Posted by Turtledove#4014 on May 3, 2019, 8:19:40 AM Quote this Post