The word for that isn't courage, it's "stupidity".My lore counterpart has actively and willingly fought yours a number of times, which really undercuts your entire argument. Unless you consider your forum counterpart to be so trivial a threat, that no courage is required to engage in single combat against you.
Yeah, yeah, whatever, old blood. That's sure workin' out for TC.And of course, I wasn't always so powerful, but became so through years of willpower, effort, and determination, on the road to Free Roller, a path that can only be followed by facing down and overcoming one's reservations, weaknesses, and fears.
Pfft. You aren't afraid of people dying or gettin' hurt, just of failing to live up to your fancy good guy reputation that y'didn't even work for.Besides, there's plenty of things to be afraid of that don't necessarily pose a real threat to me, personally, although personal failure may be an integral feature. And unlike you, I also place great value on the lives and general well-being of others.
The conclusion "Easy must be too stupid to understand how dangerous Tirin is" flies right in the face of all existing lore regarding both characters. Which is to say that you've just come up with a convoluted, unsupported, and fundamentally flawed explanation, for a phenomenon that was perfectly explicable in the first place. Why bother?The word for that isn't courage, it's "stupidity".
You think so?Yeah, yeah, whatever, old blood. That's sure workin' out for TC.
Hey.Pfft. You aren't afraid of people dying or gettin' hurt, just of failing to live up to your fancy good guy reputation that y'didn't even work for.
Fighting to prove a point when you've got no hope of winning is stupid as hell 'cause you ain't hopped up on Spiral power, and that's exactly what you did in your own damn CYOA. It's ignorance not to understand the danger; the stupidity is understanding and wasting your life anyway.The conclusion "Easy must be too stupid to understand how dangerous Tirin is" flies right in the face of all existing lore regarding both characters. Which is to say that you've just come up with a convoluted, unsupported, and fundamentally flawed explanation, for a phenomenon that was perfectly explicable in the first place. Why bother?
Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that you did. Y'didn't.Hey.
Just cause I have it, and you don't, doesn't mean that I didn't work for it.
That you don't understand how wrong this is...Fighting to prove a point when you've got no hope of winning is stupid as hell 'cause you ain't hopped up on Spiral power, and that's exactly what you did in your own damn CYOA. It's ignorance not to understand the danger; the stupidity is understanding and wasting your life anyway.
...is, in itself, enough to discredit your opinion on the matter of righteousness, heroism, and valor.Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that you did. Y'didn't.
You didn't die fighting to protect the innocent or make the world a better place. You died for nothing better than your pride and anger.That you don't understand how wrong this is...
...is, in itself, enough to discredit your opinion on the matter of righteousness, heroism, and valor.
We weren't even discussing the election. It was just a side discussion about negative attitudes. Coming into "serious discussion and debate" with a "you can't fix stupid" kind of attitude is dumb, useless, and inherently aggressive. That's all I was trying to get across.Holy fucking shit, thank Jesus tap dancing Christ on a goddamn Ritz cracker for TC. This whole clusterfuck of a thread was on the verge of giving me an aneurism. I know it's the Discussion and Debate section and you're supposed to argue or whatever, but shit, you people were tearing into each other as if this were some kind of political battle royale. Is that what this election is doing to people? Jesus Christ.
You son of a bitch.Im'a go all retro with the piece-by-piece:
The legal precedent for mishandling classified documents is a loss of security clearance and possible charges of criminal negligence. Negligence, by the way, does not require intent. A reason many people were upset that there was a need to prove intent at all. Most people that aren't part of ruling class would not have gotten the same leniency.Well, no. He said that there was no precedent for anyone successfully pursuing criminal charges against anybody, ever, with as little evidence as they'd been able to find against her, for any of the applicable charges. Then he added that people who did similar things in similar circumstances did "often" get formally reprimanded by their superiors (without ever being convicted of anything).
He said there was no evidence of criminal intent, and then proceeded to provide blatant evidence of criminal intent. Hillary and her staff made MULTIPLE false exculpatory statements. That's not including anything found in the leaked emails.Plus, he said that there was no evidence at all of criminal intent, and that the inappropriately processed emails - including those that she'd only received, as well as those that she'd actually sent - together comprised about 00.1% of the total. Doing things by the book 99.9% of the time doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me. That's literally multiple orders of magnitude more by-the-book than Donald Trump.
Sure, there's always the "governmenting is serious business, (unlike rich people-ing), so we expect you to take it more seriously" point, but let's be real. That's a good point, really. Yeah, that's how it should be. We really should hold politicians to that kind of standard.
...but you're not gonna hold fuckin' Donald Trump to anywhere near that kind of standard. You were never going to. Not even close.
And how exactly does that correlate with holding back emails, attempting to permanently delete the emails, and using a hammer to smash two devices? The only reason she didn't smash the rest of the thirteen devices is because she frequently loses them. In fact, I don't even think all of them have been recovered yet. Is that not INSANE incompetency with multiple classified documents?Hadn't heard. Though, the aforementioned FBI head did say that there was every reason to believe that there was no intention to withhold evidence, and that her legal team really did make a good-faith effort to provide all the documents called for.
I assumed you meant thorough investigation of Trump's alleged criminal activity has succeeded in justifying rulings against him. We can agree it hasn't.Was there a felony? Hadn't heard, wasn't aware that either candidate had been convicted of a felony. But, since you bring it up, Im'a guess... possession? Tax evasion? Statutory rape?
A lack of a main measure, huh?On the contrary. If anything, I consider that to be a useful primary indicator for the lack of such.
That's what I was getting at. Clinton will flipflop depending on what room she's talking to.Hillary Clinton said:But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.
You misunderstand. "No precedent for successfully pursuing criminal charges on that kind of evidence. As in, no convictions, ever, even while arguing gross negligence. (Which, yes, was mentioned specifically.) Not for the ruling class, or anyone else at all.The legal precedent for mishandling classified documents is a loss of security clearance and possible charges of criminal negligence. Negligence, by the way, does not require intent. A reason many people were upset that there was a need to prove intent at all. Most people that aren't part of ruling class would not have gotten the same leniency.
Since at least some (unspecified number) of the emails in question had been sent to her private email, rather than from it, it's pretty clear that not all handlers of classified material do, in fact, always do so. Nor are they typically tried in court of law, for such.You could argue that there is no standard of behaviour she could have followed considering her position, but obviously it would have been reasonable to expect her to apply standards of behaviour that all handlers of classified material follow. Like, for example, by following the law.
?He said there was no evidence of criminal intent, and then proceeded to provide blatant evidence of criminal intent.
Dunno anything about that. What do you mean?Hillary and her staff made MULTIPLE false exculpatory statements. That's not including anything found in the leaked emails.
While that's true, the only connection it has to this discussion is that it has three 9's in it.If you go 999 days without killing someone, you don't get a freebie.
Of course not. When's the last time an American soldier was charged with "gross negligence" for anything? That straight-up just wouldn't even be affordable, for you guys.If a soldier goes 999 days without criminally mishandling classified documents, he doesn't get a free chance to commit treason. Nor is he tried for "gross negligence," if he does so.
Enlighten me.And how exactly does that correlate with holding back emails, attempting to permanently delete the emails, and using a hammer to smash two devices? The only reason she didn't smash the rest of the thirteen devices is because she frequently loses them. In fact, I don't even think all of them have been recovered yet. Is that not INSANE incompetency with multiple classified documents?
Oh, no. We can't agree on that. That'd be stupid.I assumed you meant thorough investigation of Trump's alleged criminal activity has succeeded in justifying rulings against him. We can agree it hasn't.
Possession of?
Tax documents that leaked shows he would have had very little need for tax evasion. That's why everyone stopped talking about it. He admitted to taking advantage of loopholes.
The best thing about this is that I was literally guessing*.I mean, there's no real evidence of statutory rape yet. Barely even a story that the public can judge, let alone a fair trial. If you want to get into that kind of shit, there's a much longer standing story accusing Hillary of sexual assault. Should that be automatically believed as well?
...a lack of integrity. (Dude, read the context.)A lack of a main measure, huh?
But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.
What, that's what you're getting at?That's what I was getting at. Clinton will flipflop depending on what room she's talking to.
That's simply not true. Many soldiers and agents have been jailed or at the very least indicted for mishandling even a small handful of classified documents. It is true however, that it rarely if ever happens with the people in higher positions, they still at the very least suffer some kind of occupational penalty. Whether that be that they are fired, demoted, or lose security clearance. Comey implied that had Hillary been anyone else, or had she been working under him, there would have been consequences for her actions.You misunderstand. "No precedent for successfully pursuing criminal charges on that kind of evidence. As in, no convictions, ever, even while arguing gross negligence. (Which, yes, was mentioned specifically.) Not for the ruling class, or anyone else at all.
According to said head of FDI man, anyway.
They aren't liable for Hillary's actions. She was the one to mishandle the information.Since at least some (unspecified number) of the emails in question had been sent to her private email, rather than from it, it's pretty clear that not all handlers of classified material do, in fact, always do so. Nor are they typically tried in court of law, for such.
?
Can you quote that?
Dunno anything about that. What do you mean?
They are usually charged with worse.Of course not. When's the last time an American soldier was charged with "gross negligence" for anything? That straight-up just wouldn't even be affordable, for you guys.
An IT guy named Paul Combetta was granted immunity for his actions related to destroying material under a federal preservation request. He used a file shredding program called BleachBit to permanently delete her emails. He originally denied being aware of the preservation request, and then later admitted he was. He did claim to act alone.Enlighten me.
I dunno man. I doubt Trump could get away with actually and openly committing felonies. I really can't imagine him getting away with a scot-free public image if a foundation he ran got massive donations from foreign powers, and he then used his position in a political office to supply arms to those foreign powers' respective countries. I mean, his actions didn't directly lead to the creation and armament of yet another perpetual enemy of the US. He didn't fight to keep political and economic ties with a country that he knows is supporting that enemy. He certainly didn't give them arms deals for donations. Yet I'd say his public image has been far more tarnished than Hillary's.Oh, no. We can't agree on that. That'd be stupid.
Though, far as I know, it'd be pretty reasonable to agree that thorough investigation of Trump's alleged criminal activity has succeeded in justifying rulings against him - just not necessarily any felony convictions. Kinda like with Clinton, if she was also fined and sanctioned multiple times for conspiracy to break the law, gross negligence regarding the upholding of the law, and/or deliberate and intentional disregard of the law.
But then, I guess maybe Trump's just not part of the ruling class? Though, I have some trouble coming up with an objective assignment of the term "ruling class," in such a way as to exclude him.
Oh. Well, yeah. They've been getting everything they can out there now that the election is almost over. The tax one is the only really interesting one, but that's because it showed the exemptions he could take advantage of to get out of paying them. He majorly exploited a tax loophole and did so legally. The Epstein child rape one is also interesting to me, but that's because I've always just assumed it was true, even before a victim came forward. Bill Clinton ABSOLUTELY fucked some kids.The best thing about this is that I was literally guessing*.
*(Albeit neither seriously, nor randomly.)
How is getting caught telling private donors that you lie to the public telling it like it is?Didn't you want a candidate who actually tells it like it is, instead of a candidate who tells it like average people think it is, (but nothing like it actually is)?
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.Sorry for taking so long to reply. I had a busy week.
That's simply not true. Many soldiers and agents have been jailed or at the very least indicted for mishandling even a small handful of classified documents. It is true however, that it rarely if ever happens with the people in higher positions, they still at the very least suffer some kind of occupational penalty. Whether that be that they are fired, demoted, or lose security clearance. Comey implied that had Hillary been anyone else, or had she been working under him, there would have been consequences for her actions.
...
They are usually charged with worse.
I'm not sure how accurate or inaccurate that is, cause it's unsourced, and Comey's statement included:An IT guy named Paul Combetta was granted immunity for his actions related to destroying material under a federal preservation request. He used a file shredding program called BleachBit to permanently delete her emails. He originally denied being aware of the preservation request, and then later admitted he was. He did claim to act alone.
Only two of her 13 devices have been accounted for. They've been accounted for because a Clinton aide used a hammer to smash them. I did believe that they were smashed after the subpoena was issued, which isn't necessarily true. It's not known when they were destroyed. The other 11 devices are unaccounted for. It's not even known what information is on them or can be accessed with them, because their whereabouts are still unknown. Even the ones smashed with a hammer might have had recoverable information on them.
It was my understanding that she was subpoenaed for all work related emails on her server. Her lawyers then went through her 60k emails, determining about half of them were personal and subsequently deleting them for funsies before turning over the other half. Then the State Department found an additional 15k she had not turned over and had been removed from her server. Some of that 15k included what were personal emails to Sydney Blumenthal that they had to retroactively mark as classified because Hillary for whatever reason thought it was cool to share confidential information with him. Any of that inaccurate? Because with all the lies the Clinton campaign has told, I'll admit it's hard to get it all straight.
Like using charity funds to bribe judges into dropping his lawsuits?I dunno man. I doubt Trump could get away with actually and openly committing felonies.
Maybe, but as far as I'm aware, nobody's ever been able to at all demonstrate that Clinton Foundation donations ever swayed state department action or policy at all.I really can't imagine him getting away with a scot-free public image if a foundation he ran got massive donations from foreign powers, and he then used his position in a political office to supply arms to those foreign powers' respective countries.
What?I mean, his actions didn't directly lead to the creation and armament of yet another perpetual enemy of the US.
It kinda looks like he has done. Not to mention that US Intelligence has long since confirmed that the Russian government has actively hacked American sites, accounts, and institutions to help Trump get elected, and video footage confirms that Trump has personally asked them to do so.He didn't fight to keep political and economic ties with a country that he knows is supporting that enemy.
Can you demonstrate that Hillary's ever done that?He certainly didn't give them arms deals for donations.
His public image gets tarnished by him opening his mouth. Hillary's gets tarnished by political opponents abusing their powers to do so.Yet I'd say his public image has been far more tarnished than Hillary's.
It... really just looks like he's less prone to prosecution than other people are, to the extent that he's even less prosecutable than Hillary goddamn Clinton is. I mean, he's the one for whom there's actual evidence of criminal misuse of charity funds.You pointed it out yourself really. The fact that he has had so many legal problems and reported scandals through his life just goes to show the divide between himself and the real ruling class.
Trump being incompetent enough to rack up a billion-dollar deficit running a casino in Atlantic City, and still not having to lose anything himself as a result, is really more a testimony of how the current system, which Trump feels is not favorable enough for rich people like himself, is already far too rigged in favor of rich people like himself. Never claimed that particular bit of fuckery was illegal.Oh. Well, yeah. They've been getting everything they can out there now that the election is almost over. The tax one is the only really interesting one, but that's because it showed the exemptions he could take advantage of to get out of paying them. He majorly exploited a tax loophole and did so legally.
Dunno anything about that.The Epstein child rape one is also interesting to me, but that's because I've always just assumed it was true, even before a victim came forward. Bill Clinton ABSOLUTELY fucked some kids.
Because it's a generally well known and accepted fact that politicians regularly lie in public. Don't believe me? Check out Politifact, regarding Trump.How is getting caught telling private donors that you lie to the public telling it like it is?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=soliders+charged+with+mishandling+classified+documents&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=SrwPWN_4AqPYjwTx9ZyIBQ#q=soldiers+charged+with+mishandling+classified+material"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
I can tell you the stuff related to Paul Combetta I know to be accurate. The fact that Clinton used 13 devices and could only account for the two of them that her aide smashed with a hammer is also accurate. In fact, from what you posted yourself there, I'm pretty confident it's all accurate.I'm not sure how accurate or inaccurate that is, cause it's unsourced, and Comey's statement included:
There is about as much correlation between the lawsuit being dropped and Trumps donation as there is between Hillary's repeated foundation donations and her boosts in arms trading. :^)Like using charity funds to bribe judges into dropping his lawsuits?
Maybe, but as far as I'm aware, nobody's ever been able to at all demonstrate that Clinton Foundation donations ever swayed state department action or policy at all.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774#efmBBMBDeWhat?
Yup, Trump made money off of individuals of Saudi Arabian descent. Is that comparable to the relationship Clinton has with multiple countries that she knows to have aided American enemies? She gets donations, and sells favours to enemies on the American taxpayers dime. Favours that will ultimately hurt the Americans she's meant to protect.
Really? Like they confirmed anthrax and WMDs? Or that a tape caused the attack on Benghazi? How did they confirm it?Not to mention that US Intelligence has long since confirmed that the Russian government has actively hacked American sites, accounts, and institutions to help Trump get elected, and video footage confirms that Trump has personally asked them to do so.
Nope. :^)Can you demonstrate that Hillary's ever done that?
Investigating an incident that began with the State department immediately lying about the reasoning for said incident, that involved 4 Americans being killed, some of whose presence in the area was entirely unexplained at the time, and the ignored requests for extra security spanning across months. That's an abuse of power? Should stuff like that go without any sort of investigation or oversight in order to prepare for similar events in the future?His public image gets tarnished by him opening his mouth. Hillary's gets tarnished by political opponents abusing their powers to do so.
There are clear issues with Hillary that span far past her two most recent scandals. She secretly coordinated with the DNC to rob Bernie Sanders of the nomination. She's now been unwittingly implicated by Bob Creamer with inciting violence at Trump rallies, election fraud, and coordinating with super-PACs. Bob Creamer by the way, has been to the White House over 300 times.It... really just looks like he's less prone to prosecution than other people are, to the extent that he's even less prosecutable than Hillary goddamn Clinton is. I mean, he's the one for whom there's actual evidence of criminal misuse of charity funds.
In other words, Hillary scandals seem to generally follow the pattern: 1) Evidence of wrongdoing appears. 2) Hillary is thoroughly investigated for criminal charges. 3) All legal authorities involved, after thousands of man-hours of review, determine that the evidence does not support prosecution. 4) Trump fans refuse to accept that result, because fuck 'em, what do those guys know? She's obviously guilty.
Whereas Trump scandals seem to generally follow the pattern: 1) Evidence of wrongdoing appears. 2) Investigation is stalled, prolonged, or otherwise fails to occur - quite possibly with financial contributions to political figures taking place in the meantime. 3) Trump fans ignore any concerns, because fuck 'em, what do those guys know? He's obviously not guilty.
Latter one seems effectively more ruling-class, to me.
How so? He's running on the platform of eliminating those types of loopholes and simplifying tax law.Trump being incompetent enough to rack up a billion-dollar deficit running a casino in Atlantic City, and still not having to lose anything himself as a result, is really more a testimony of how the current system, which Trump feels is not favorable enough for rich people like himself, is already far too rigged in favor of rich people like himself. Never claimed that particular bit of fuckery was illegal.
Bill Clinton flew on Jeffery Epstein's "Lolita Express" 26 times.Dunno anything about that.
I can assure you, I believe you more than them. Politifact's bias is very well-known.Because it's a generally well known and accepted fact that politicians regularly lie in public. Don't believe me? Check out Politifact, regarding Trump.
(Holy shit, turns out he literally lies in public more often than not.)