Lurker > darkknight109

My first ever barber had hair down to her ankles.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Other: Goemon

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's more like teaching children how to find escape routes quickly. It doesn't stop child molesters trying to do their thing but at least some children might get lucky and escape raping.

I mean, I'd rather figure out how the child molesters are getting access to kids and stop that from happening, but if you'd rather do the escape route thing, you do you.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Your condom analogy makes no sense as STDs are the last thing on your mind when getting molested

Which was exactly my point. It's technically better than doing nothing, but not by much and only because you've done a shit job of actually addressing the real problem at hand.

TerranceC posted...

Literally any one of us can grt shot and killed by a spree shooter literally any day and you want to take the futilistic approach and surmise the underlying reason instead of just getting your ass ready in case someone tries to kill you someday.

I've been in martial arts for almost 30 years now. I'm about as prepped as a civilian can reasonably be without going to ridiculous extremes.

It still changes absolutely nothing regarding what I said. I don't *want* to use my martial arts. I don't *want* to be in a situation where I have to. That's why I'm saying you'll get far, far more bang for your buck by actually figuring out *why* there are so many spree shooters and determining how to stop them (hint: America has a grossly disproportionate number of them and there's a very good reason for that), rather than just telling people to start combat rolling when the bullets start flying.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Saying that all Americans should be combat trained to help react to mass shooters is a bit like saying that all children should be keeping condoms in their backpack to help deal with child molesters - it is technically something that will decrease the damage done, but is still dodging the fundamental problem at hand.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Tha_Man_DS posted...

This (aka 16,7%) is the only correct answer.

I hope you two were deliberately taking the piss on this one.

Anyways, TC, an easy shorthand I use for this sort of question is to ask if it's easier to calculate the opposite of what you're trying. In this example, if you roll six dice, what's the % chance you don't get any sixes?

This, conceptually, is much easier to calculate - it's just 5/6 (the odds of not getting a six on a single roll) to the power of the number of rolls (since all of them have to show a not-six result for the condition to be met) - in other words (5/6)^6.

Now that you know the odds of not satisfying your condition (i.e. getting all non-six results), 100% minus that value is the answer you want.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Not any more than I am now.

I'm a project manager, which is fine, but I would not want to be a team leader or actual people manager.

Thankfully, my line of work allows for other opportunities for career growth. I'm more interested in becoming an SME than anything to do with management.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/19/conservative-radio-host-wishes-colorado-school-shooting-during-trump-impeachment/

Chuck Bonniwell, host of the conservative "Chuck & Julie" radio show in Colorado, wished for - direct quote here - "a nice school shooting" to interrupt the impeachment coverage.

Bonus scumlord points: after he was fired for the statement and his show was cancelled, his apology claimed it was just a big joke and included the phrase "Im sorry it was not received that way."

Pro-tip: If your apology ever includes some variation of the phrase, "I'm sorry you did/felt ___________", don't bother making it.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

aDirtyShisno posted...

After all the House literally gets to decide what is and isnt impeachable on a whim and then just has to prove that it took place.

That's literally always been the case.

aDirtyShisno posted...

Based on this precedent that the House has just set I hope to see every single future President impeached if the opposition party holds the House majority.

So you're hoping that every president from now on solicits bribes and demands foreign interference into political opponents?

Seems like an odd thing to hope for if you ask me.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

GanonsSpirit posted...

Sure, except for the part of the Constitution that grants the president's ability to pardon, which says the president "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"

All that means is he can't pardon someone to make them immune to impeachment. He could still issue a pardon for those offence to make the individual in question immune to federal criminal prosecution, but their impeachment would be unaffected.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

18 for me in a couple weeks.

My account is almost a legal adult.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

GanonsSpirit posted...

Well, now he can't be pardoned for these offenses.

Uhm... yes, he can.

Impeachment is not a judicial exercise, it's a political one; as such, pardoning and impeachment are totally unrelated.

Some future president (or possibly Trump himself, although the ability to pardon one's own crimes is legally untested and probably unconstitutional) could pardon Trump and it would prevent anyone from charging him and trying him for his crimes after he is no longer president, even if he is impeached and removed. That's essentially what happened to Nixon, though he quit before he could be impeached.

However, by the same token, if Trump were to issue himself a preliminary pardon and it somehow held up in court, it would not save him from impeachment or trial-by-senate, as the constitution explicitly states that the president's pardons cannot be used to override impeachment proceedings.

For the same reason, impeachment does not trigger double jeopardy. Whether Trump is ultimately removed or not, it doesn't prevent him from being charged criminally in the future (nor does it prevent Democrats from just impeaching him again for the same crimes, although that would be a fairly stupid move unless some really damning evidence surfaced).

TheWorstPoster posted...

Good.

It means he wins in a landslide next year

Not sure if you've been following the polling, but roughly 50% of the population supports impeachment and removal versus 42% opposed.

I doubt this will impact Trump's election chances - positively or negatively - at all. His approval rating has barely moved, up or down, since this all started.

Which is kind of depressing, to be honest...

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I didn't. Where do you think I said that?

Post 92, brah.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The Ukraine presidsent says otherwise. What reason does he have to lie if he's the victim?

Because the odds of Trump being removed were never higher than low single digits, meaning this guy is dependent on Trump not fucking him over again if he actually wants to not get rolled by Russia, so he has to pretend like everything's cool even though he basically got shaken down by a mobster president.

Seriously, read the transcript of his conversation with Trump. This guy knew exactly what was going on.

Not to mention, if he truly "felt no pressure" from Trump, why did he book an appearance on CNN to read the script that Trump's minions had sent to him? Why did he cancel it when the whistleblower report became public and Trump released the aid money?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Sounds about right for the Democrats.

Standard conspiracy theory statement here. "The target of my ire is a secret criminal mastermind, deviously manipulating the world powers into doing their nefarious bidding, while still making mistakes so stupid that I, a nobody on an internet message board, can spot them with no insider knowledge."

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So the US told Ukraine they won't get aid unless they do what the US wants.

Loan guarantees are not aid (though that is a slim distinction)

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Trump asked Ukraine to do something but never made it a condition of receiving aid.

Incorrect, and numerous people have testified under oath to this fact, including:
-Gordon Sondland, Trump's Ambassador to the EU, who was heavily involved in the Ukraine inquiry. Notably, Sondland initially gave testimony favourable to Trump but, upon hearing about the statements other witnesses had made, later amended it seemingly to avoid perjury charges. Sondland has now said it was his understanding that the White House meeting and military aid were conditioned on Zelenskiy doing as Trump asked, and he stated as much to Andriy Yermak, an aide to the Ukranian president.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Director for European Affairs. Vindman testified "there was no doubt" Trump wanted to trade military aide for Ukraine's investigations.
-William Taylor, Trump's Ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor repeatedly raised concerns about a quid pro quo and was largely brushed off by administration officials. Taylor also reviewed the summary transcript and found significant omissions, including a significant amount of time Trump spent talking about Biden, and requested that corrections be made. These corrections were denied.
-According to texts between Kurt Volker (special envoy to Ukraine) and Gordon Sondland, Zelenskiy was actually sent a script by presidential aides laying out exactly what he should say in his statement. Notably, Volker resigned almost immediately after the scandal broke.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Biden was assigned this job. It was his job to see that an investigation into Burisma occurs.

Alright. Still waiting to hear the corrupt part here.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This fact doesn't contradict anything I said. Why are you bringing this up?

Because you've said that Biden was corrupt for pushing for the ouster of a prosecutor who was supposed to be investigating Burisma, the company his son worked for; I'm simply showing that a lot more people, including those outside the US, wanted Shokin gone.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They are, and they have been planning to impeach him before the Mueller report even came out.

So why didn't they do it when the Mueller report came out? When they had over 1000 bipartisan legal professionals agreeing that the report met the standard for high crimes and misdemeanours?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They've been planning it since the election results.

So they wait until Trump is 3/4 of the way through his term so that at best they would be stripping him of less than a year's worth of power and making Pence - a man who has more conservative bonafides and none of Trump's political vulnerability - in power? Seems tactically questionable.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LeetCheet posted...

And there is no logic in not telling their plan to the whole crew.

Sure there was. The movie points out that there have been desertions as crew members have tried to flee in escape pods. The entire plan hinged on secrecy. If some terrified soul fled to the First Order and sold them out (or was captured trying to bail in an escape pod), it would have resulted in the deaths of everyone onboard.

Notably, the plan would have worked and the only reason it went tits up is because Poe was dumb enough to blab details of it on a comm line while someone with no loyalty to the Resistance was listening in. Had he actually shut up and followed orders, he and everyone else would have made it to Crait with no issues and with the First Order believing they had all died with their ships.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Muscles posted...

So the whole clone wars story was shit?

*What* Clone Wars story? It started at the end of the second movie and it was over by midway through the third. We were never given any reason why the confederacy wanted to secede from the Republic or why the Republic wanted them to stay. We have no idea what life was like for ordinary citizens under either government.

The only "content" to the wars consisted of a couple of battle scenes with no greater story significance where it was impossible to tell who was winning and by how much.

Not to mention, it completely kills any sense of suspence when it's apparent from the outset that the same guy is running both sides and all of the soldiers consist of combat automata (clones on one side, droids on the other). There's absolutely no drama to that story and the movies gave me absolutely zero reason to care about it.

Muscles posted...

Ok, you can think that but it's way more interesting than mary sue and her token diverse friends with no personality doing whatever the plot dictates

And you actually think the prequels were better in that regard? Please.

Let's take a look at AotC, just for a laugh

We start with Padme getting targeted by an assassination attempt by a supposedly famed and feared bounty hunter. He blows up her ship and when that doesn't work, decides to "go for something more subtle". Yes, sure, that makes sense - let's try subtle when her guard is up and her security is going to be on high alert, as opposed to doing the subtle thing first when she doesn't realize she's being targeted for assassination.

Despite this being a high profile target that would presumably warrant his personal intervention, Fett subcontracts to a second hunter, Zam Wessel, who sub-sub contracts to her droid. Wessel's role in the plot appeared to be taking some bugs from Jango, carrying them literally ten feet to a waiting droid, and putting them inside. Right. Sure.

Over at the Amidala residence, we see that the Republic security team is on the ball by assigning Padme a whopping two Jedi as bodyguards and leaving her in her usual apartment instead of moving her to more secure surroundings. Creepy McGee succeeds in weirding her out badly enough that she disables the security camera in her room, despite the fact that the entire reason he and Obi-Wan are there is to protect her from an assassination attempt. Incredibly, the Jedi are even dumber than she is, so when they notice she's turned the camera off they decide, instead of immediately knocking on her door and asking her to turn it back on for her safety, to start bickering with one another instead

The assassination droid arrives, cuts a hole in Padme's window, and at that point it really should have been game over for her. The droid could use a blaster or a bomb or even a simple knife and killed her before the Jedi realized anything was amiss. However, in a stroke of good fortune, it turns out that between Wessel and Fett they have come up with the one specific assassination method that the Jedi will be able to detect and thwart due to its reliance on living creatures. The Jedi arrive to save the day, the droid books it, and Obi-Wan makes the questionable decision to jump and try and grab onto the droid, rendering himself helpless, despite having no idea if it can support his weight or if it has a weapon that it could use against him. Luckily for him, instead of keelhauling him, flying off into the night, or just self-destructing, it instead makes a few half-hearted attempts to shake him off before obediently flying directly back to its owner with him still hanging on. Anakin races off to go join them, ensuring that Padme is left totally unprotected in the event that the hunters were waiting nearby to confirm the kill. Fortunately for her, they're just as bad at their jobs as the Jedi, so they have no backup plan for what to do if their little plot fails

Some stuff happens, and Wessel winds up fleeing into a bar to escape the Jedi. At this point she - whom the movie takes great pains to point out is a shapeshifter - could just change into someone else and get the fuck out of dodge to plan her next move. Instead, she attempts to jump one of them despite the fact that they're not her target, killing them gets her nothing, and the attack would draw a significant amount of attention to her, something she is trying to avoid. Predictably, this ends badly for her, resulting in her capture. Nearby, Jango - who, for some reason, did not intervene at all in the mission prior to this point - decides to silence her to prevent her from spilling the beans. However, to do this he uses the one weapon in his considerable arsenal that can be traced back to his current base of operations, a planet he and his employer have spent significant time and effort trying to hide from the Jedi. This action eventually leads Obi-Wan directly to him, nearly undoing the better part of a decade of Palpatine's scheming. He then flies off into the night, while the Jedi watch helplessly from below; it never occurs to either party that he, having confirmed that both her guards are stranded at a distant bar, could use this opportunity to head back to Padme's apartment and finish her off

That's just one part of the story and the PT is riddled with these. I could go on for pages about the ridiculous set-ups and insane leaps of logic that the prequels rely on to try and put together a narrative. It's just... so fucking bad. It's like the entire plot was written by a tweaking meth-head

Muscles posted...

kylo was still evil but tempted by the light. rey was still good but tempted by the dark side

Sounds like Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker.

Muscles posted...

finn did nothing of importance to the story in either movie, and in the 2nd one he took up like an hour of filler on his side quest

Sure, as long as you don't count setting up the entire climax of the movie.

Episode VIII was the first time I can recall - in *any* fictional work that I've read/watched/played - where the protagonists plot out this one-in-a-million scheme and it actually does what it would do in real life and blows up in their faces. The subsequent scene where everything suddenly goes to shit, the Resistance starts getting blasted to pieces, and Holdo is forced into her own desperate gambit are the high point of the film (and I honestly wouldn't have been disappointed if they'd ended it there). That scene is only possible tha

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't think you've responded to every single thing I've said either. Although I think we should pick up on the parts we find most important.

Based on that, you apparently find factual inaccuracies unimportant, because that's most of what you're skipping over.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't recall saying that removing the first prosecutor was a bad thing.

You have a short memory then. From Post 92:

"As for why I suspect Biden actually is corrupt - The US had to withhold aid to Ukraine in the past to remove the previously mentioned prosecutor. It was Biden's job to pressure Ukraine into doing this.The company that the prosecutor was meant to investigate employs Biden's son."

There's four inaccuracies or notable omissions in this statement, as I've previously gone into:
1) The US didn't withhold aid, they refused to guarantee future loans
2) It was the US embassy, not Biden, that was pushing for Shokin's ouster - Biden was just brought in as the point man.
3) The US was not alone in pushing for Shokin's removal - the EU, the IMF, and the Ukrainian citizenry also wanted him gone
4) Shokin wasn't looking into Burisma, he'd let the investigation go dormant; his successor, with America's blessing, re-opened the investigation while promising to take an aggressive stance against corruption.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The Democrats would claim that Trump only made the appeal the help Russia and make that the grounds for impeachment.

That's not grounds for impeachment by any reasonable metric, because Trump petitioning congress to modify their funding priorities is not a crime and is, in fact, a routine part of governance. There's absolutely no way a majority of Democrats would support impeachment proceedings over a budget modification request, not when Trump has employed far more legally dubious budgetary moves - like declaring a fake emergency to strip funding from the military and use it to build the wall - and never been at serious threat of impeachment.

Hell, if the Democrats were that gung-ho on impeachment, they could have done it based on the reports of the Mueller report. Mueller pointedly did not exonerate Trump on charges of obstruction of justice and he all but stated that the only reason he didn't accuse the president of committing a serious crime is because he did not feel he had the authority to do so. Meanwhile, over 1000 former prosecutors from both parties signed an open letter indicating that it was their view that Trump's conduct, as laid out in the Mueller report, constituted a criminal offence and that they believe he would be facing criminal charges were it not for presidential immunity to federal prosecution.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I'm not arguing that.

You sure as hell seem to be. Your arguments have devolved into a contradictory mess that are getting to be impossible to untangle.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Great, so in preparation to go before congress with his concerns

What's your evidence he was planning to go before congress at all?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

he was a) determining if making an appeal to congress was called for and b) ensure it's success if it is.

And breaking the law in the process.

What you're basically saying is that in order to determine if Ukraine was corrupt and therefore justify asking congress to freeze aid, Trump froze aid and attempted to investigate if Ukraine was corrupt.

Do you see the several logical problems with that statement?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I'm not arguing that.

Then lay out your case. You've separately alleged that Biden was corrupt, because he got rid of a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company ("therefore Trump was totally justified in investigating Biden"), and that the prosecutor was corrupt because he wasn't investigating Biden's company ("therefore Trump was totally justified in illegally freezing aid to Ukraine, something he did not have the power to do").

You've also separately argued that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden because he was corrupt and also that he wasn't pressuring Ukraine at all and was just concerned and the freeze was done because Ukraine is corrupt.

You need to sort your arguments out and pick a lane.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So while someone else is appointed, briefed on everything they need to know, go through the bureaucratic channels, and an investigation gets underway there's still a deadline represented by how long the aid can be delayed. Do you think Trump would have gotten an answer by then?

Probably not.

You know what that doesn't justify? Breaking the law.

If Trump was so concerned about this, the correct action was to go to congress, explain, "I have grave misgivings about this aid and would like to request that it be frozen while I conduct an investigation into Ukraine in order to confirm that they are not corrupt and this aid is being spent appropriately," and request congressional approval to rescind the aid. If granted, Trump can freeze the aid for as long as he wants, until the investigation is completed to his (or, more specifically, to congress's) satisfaction.

But Trump didn't do that. Instead, he illegally froze the aid, lied about it, then attempted to use it to blackmail a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent only to frantically backtrack when he got caught.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No... at this point I severely doubt if you and I are having the same conversation.

Apparently not, given how you cherry pick which of my points to respond to while studiously ignoring all the holes I'm poking in your argument.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Muscles posted...

Story =/= plot

And both were shit, however you want to define them.

Muscles posted...

Also you are giving the Disney trilogy too much credit, their plots are fucking trash too.

About the worst you can say about TFA's plot is that it was a blatant rip-off, so unless you also think ANH had a trash plot, there's really no basis there.

TLJ was controversial, but I enjoyed it and, again, at least the plot made logical sense.

Muscles posted...

Their actors can't act, they have no charisma and no depth whatsoever

I would watch 10 hours of my least favourite characters from the sequels over 30 minutes of suffering through Hayden Christensen.

Muscles posted...

and no they really don't talk like actual people, the writing is bad in there too.

There is nothing in the sequels that even comes close to the putrescence of the PT's dialogue and that's about as close to objective fact as you're going to get in discussions of a movie's quality. I mean seriously, the PT gave us:
-"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"
-"Love won't save you, Padme, only my new powers can do that!"
-"I'm haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me."
-Now that Im with you again, Im in agony. My heart is beating, hoping that that kiss will not become a scar.
-"He said you killed younglings!

Even the sequels' clumsiest dialogue isn't as bad as any of those.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states

So people keep telling me, apparently ignorant of the fact that I'm completely against undemocratic electoral systems, regardless of who benefits.

In Canada, I complained about Conservative Steven Harper winning what amounts to 100% of legislative and executive power with just 39% of the vote. I complained again when it happened four years later when Liberal Justin Trudeau did the exact same thing with the exact same numbers (one of the reasons I voted for him in 2015 was his promise to change Canada's FPTP voting system, a promise he ultimately did not keep).

Systems that distort the people's electoral will are bullshit, regardless of which party they serve to prop up. The electoral college is a dumber system than most, but it's hardly the only undemocratic voting system out there.

HornedLion posted...

I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else.

Did you explain to him that the electoral college was never intended to pick the president and it was expected by the constitution's framers to be a once-in-a-lifetime event?

TheWorstPoster posted...

Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact?

Suppose you live in California, the most populous state of 40,000,000 people and convinced 500,000 of your peers to vote for your candidate of choice. Would you want tiny Wyoming, with its population that's less than 2% of yours, to override your efforts with just 150,000 people and thereby dictate to you how you live and what laws you must enact?

Those are real numbers, by the way. The value of a vote in Wyoming is over 3x higher than the value of a vote in California because of the way the electoral college assigns its electors.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

HornedLion posted...

Just had a fiery discussion with a coworker about all this, and I figured out what their reasoning is for being okay with the majority of the country wanting one thing but instead the minority winning.

Their talking point to that is mob rule. Yup. You heard it right. NYers, Californians, highly populated areas, the college educated, and the like... are all a mob.

In the end, though, after getting hit with all the facts they were left with, Why the outrage now, what about when Obama.... Whataboutisms. Thats all theyre left with in the end.

Not sure which Fox News host came up with that one, but I've heard it too.

"We can't have majority rule. It would be awful. When people feel their voices aren't being heard, they start to get violent." - It's like, OK, I don't disagree... so why is your conclusion that it's alright to ignore the will of an even bigger group of people and make them feel their voices aren't being heard?

Also look for this old gem to make a (re)appearance as we get closer to the election: "The electoral college is a good idea, because it prevents big states like California, New York, and Texas from having all the power and influence." - Because it's better for swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania to have that power instead? OK.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Without knowing what Rudy Giuliani said to Trump about her, if Trump was lead to think she was part of the problem in Ukraine then why would he trust her in helping determine if sending aid to Ukraine is in the interest of the US?

Even if he opted to replace her with someone else, that doesn't change the process. Just use whatever person he sends in to replace her to carry out the process instead.

Situations like this are the exact reason why there are procedures for asking a foreign country for assistance in an investigation - so that all possibilities for even the appearance of a conflict of interest are addressed.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So he needed to do information gathering on his own to a) determine if an investigation was called for and b) ensure it's success if it is. That required cooperation with Ukraine.

So let me get this straight: You think that Trump needed an investigation to see if an investigation was warranted, so he contacted a country he suspected of being untrustworthy to help him with his investigation into their trustworthiness and withheld aid to test that trustworthiness then released it when they proved they were trustworthy by doing nothing and not acceding to any of his demands.

Do I about have the long and short of this incredibly ridiculous defence?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The US had to withhold aid to Ukraine in the past to remove the previously mentioned prosecutor.

Technically they didn't withhold aid, they just threatened to not guarantee any more Ukrainian loans unless Shokin was fired.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It was Biden's job to pressure Ukraine into doing this.The company that the prosecutor was meant to investigate employs Biden's son.

Hmm, you're right, that sure sounds suspicious... until you remember that the EU and the IMF were also pushing for Shokin's ouster and that the main entity on the US side pressing for him to be fired was the American embassy, not Biden (Biden was apparently pressed into service at the embassy's request, as they wanted some big guns to lean on Ukrainian leadership). Or are you going to tell me that all of those groups also had sons working for Ukrainian companies that Shokin was supposed to be investigating?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Then when an investigation does occur there were no grounds for charges.

So did a concurrent British investigation into the same transactions.

Lemme guess - Biden tried to get them fired too?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Well that's unfortunate because an announcement would have cleared things up.

Unlikely - it just would have been Zelenskiy giving into Trump's extortion, which is why he immediately cancelled it as soon as the aid was released.

If anything, that should be a pretty solid indicator of how well-founded Trump's accusations were (which is to say, not at all).

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I said "investigating a company within their country and what happened with a preosecutor in their legal system that was looking into that company." I didn't say he was tryting to fight corruption. If anything he was inadequate in his role of looking into it.

Fucking what? You want Shokin to investigate himself?

And yes, he was inadequate into looking into Burisma - that's exactly what I said in my first post. That's precisely why the Americans - with Joe Biden as their point man - the EU, and the IMF all wanted him gone.

Do you see the problem yet? You're arguing that Biden was corrupt, while simultaneously arguing that he was trying to get a prosecutor shitcanned who was overlooking the corruption you're accusing him of partaking in. That is the opposite of a sensible argument.

Please decide which set of Republican talking points you're going to stick with - when you mix them together, the logical inconsistencies are rather jarring.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So if the president has doubt about whether sending aid is in the interest of the US is he not able to go before congress with reasons why they should reconsider?

Sure. And if Trump had done that, he would have been completely within his rights.

But he didn't do that. He didn't stand before the relevant committees in congress and say, "I think this aid is misguided." Maybe he met with some of them privately, that's possible - but in the end, he failed to convince them of any concerns he may or may not have had and congress - who, as a reminder, have exclusive power over government spending - did not rescind their spending order.

So yes, if Trump presses on and refuses to spend money on Ukraine, despite congress telling him he has to, he is violating appropriations law. He is allowed to go before congress and voice concerns; he's not allowed to unilaterally change spending priorities when congress tells him to get lost.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He would have liked to test them further but was adequately convinced he wasn't giving aid to the bad guys.

Good grief, this level of straw-grabbing is just sad.

How did he "test" Ukraine? He attempted to solicit a bribe, Ukraine demurred, and that's supposed to prove... what, exactly?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

With the Ukrainians aware of the delay he released the aid lest the delay itself become an obstacle in future diplomacy.

Pentagon e-mails and testimony from Laura Cooper show that Ukraine was well aware that the aid was delayed and were asking the US what the holdup was as early as July, before Trump ever made his demands to Zelenskiy. It was already an obstacle in diplomacy before that phone call ever took place.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He doesn't want to openly say he thought the Ukraine President was shady following the willingness he has shown to help the US. That would be bad diplomacy.

But holding up military aid that an ally desperately needs to fight off a geopolitical rival isn't?

You have strange priorities.

Seriously, this is an absolutely ridiculous non-defence here. Trump thought Ukraine was corrupt, so he fires his anti-corruption ambassador, asks Ukraine to investigate an American citizen and political rival, then is so pleased with their non-answer and worried he's ruining diplomatic relations that he panics and releases the aid despite Ukraine doing nothing? Do you not realize how utterly nonsensical that sounds?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Dude is a creep and the dementia is setting in hard

Funniest thing in the world coming from a Trump supporter.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If he had actually been an angry black guy, he would have been a more interesting character.

He was more of a bland cardboard black guy. Who was supposed to remind you of a cool/angry black guy by proxy because of who they cast.

Don't remind me. Windu was such an incredible missed opportunity.

Jackson could have been such an amazing dynamic character if you'd made him a Republic general or a bounty hunter or a crime boss or... well, basically anything other than a Jedi Master, especially one who spends 90% of his time sitting in a chair scowling at people.

If they absolutely, positively had to keep him as a Jedi, they at least could have given him something to do. Set him up as the leader of an internal faction, one that was in favour of more intervention and participation in the Clone Wars where an opposing faction, perhaps led by Yoda, would be in favour of pacifism and non-involvement in political affairs. There's all sorts of interesting storylines that could make, especially in terms of how it would tie in to Obi-Wan (noted in the OT as being a talented general, so probably someone who would fall-in with Mace) and Anakin.

The Jedi were just so painfully dull for most of the prequel trilogy, and Mace seems to embody that more than anyone.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Muscles posted...

but at least the prequels had a good story

Funniest thing I've read all week.

The prequels' story was absolute trash. Like, honestly probably the worst plot I've ever seen in a big-budget film this side of M. Night Shyamalan.

Episode I was strung together with bits of nonsense and stupidity, and yet it still somehow managed to be more coherent than Episode II, where people literally do complete random bullshit purely because it's the only way Lucas could think of for the plot to go where he wanted it to. These two movies - AotC in particular - just have the most absolute fucking loopy plots when you actually sit down and think them through rather than watch the pretty explosions.

RotS managed to avoid the logical inconsistencies of its predecessors, but only because it basically took the end of AotC and the beginning of ANH and connected them with absolutely no twists, surprises, or interesting plot developments. The plot to RotS is simply boring and that still manages to be an improvement over the first two prequels.

Say what you will about the sequel trilogy's problems - and there are several - at least its plot makes sense. At least it has actors who can act, scriptwriters who actually understand how human beings talk to each other, directors who know what a second take is.

The prequels are just trash films and I'll be darkly impressed if any major motion picture plumbs the depths they reached again.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Trump has no reason to worry about Biden.

Fact check: Mostly false.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Biden leads the generic match-up against Biden by ~7-9%, which is almost assuredly enough to secure a win. And that's now, after all this has gone down. Back when this was all shaking out, Biden was ahead by double digits

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447972-biden-leads-trump-by-landslide-proportions-in-new-national-poll

Trump absolutely has good reason to be scared of Biden. Calling the election this far out is impossible, but Biden has been polling strongly and that is something that Trump - weak as he is (see above for his approval numbers) - cannot ignore.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Again, Trump needs to know if the government he's sending aid to is corrupt.

No, Trump does not, because that's not his job.

That's congress's job and congress already confirmed that Ukraine is good and the aid should flow.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wasn't the American ambassador to Ukraine (Marie Yovanovitch) recalled for refusing to do that very thing you just described?

No, actually, and I'm glad you brought her up.

Yovanovich was removed because Rudy Giuliani didn't like her, largely because she was leading anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine that were targeting his business partners (several of whom were arrested recently on corruption charges when they came to America). He badmouthed her constantly to Trump, who eventually ordered her dismissal, despite several people in the State Department urging Mike Pompeo to step up and defend her, because the allegations being made against her were unfounded.

Again, if Trump really was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, Yovanovich was an ally, not an enemy. Anti-corruption was one of her big focuses in Ukraine and she wound up losing her job for it.

No one has ever alleged that Yovanovich was removed for not following orders. Even the State department attempted to say, in letters to Democrat lawmakers, that she left because her term expired (which was a lie that subsequently got exposed).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Does the US have jurisdiction to investigate companies in another country?

If they involve American citizens, absolutely.

If Trump had good reason to suspect Joe Biden of corruption (Trump did not have good reason to suspect Joe Biden of corruption), he could have requested that the FBI investigate him and his actions vis-a-vis Ukraine. He didn't do that because he knew that a) The investigation would be based on complete bullshit and the FBI would say so and b) It would be more politically damaging to him than Biden if he was seen to be ordering the investigation. Thus, he attempted to have Ukraine do it for him instead so that he could deny he was ever involved.

Clever scheme - good thing Trump's a moron or it might have actually worked.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Since when does the media wait for evidence?

You're the one who made the allegation that Biden's actions were corrupt, brah, not the media. Trying to deflect on to them is not going to work.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I can't find anything that says such an announcement ever occurred.

Zelenskiy booked time on CNN to make that announcement. He cancelled it as soon as the whistleblower thing blew up and Trump released the aid.

Moreover, the fact that the announcement didn't occur changes nothing. This is the "Sideshow Bob" defence, alleging that a crime attempted-but-failed isn't a crime.

Again, if I get pulled over by a crooked cop and he threatens to arrest me unless I pay him $500 and I refuse, then he lets me go anyways, that cop still committed a crime. The solicitation of the bribe *is* the crime - the fact that I didn't pay it changes nothing.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

is ignoring a shady company within their country

An independent British investigation confirmed there was no grounds for charges against Burisma.

And I would bet my house that you couldn't tell me a thing about why Burisma is "shady" without looking up the allegations against them (which, to be precise, have more to do with the oligarch in charge of the company than the company itself).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

and has corrupt prosecutors in their legal system is a bad thing

First you say that Shokin was trying to fight corruption, now you're agreeing with me that he's corrupt?

Ukraine has made significant steps in cleaning up its internal corruption since the Yanukovich and Poroshenko regimes, BTW.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think Trump did right in trying to determine if the US was helping the bad guys before approving the aid.

Trump cannot "approve" aid! He is literally not allowed to do that! That's part of the reason *why* he's in so much trouble.

It is congress's job to approve aid and determine how much is spent and in what way. Not the president's. The president cannot override the will of congress when it comes to spending or not spending money, for the same reason he can't create his own court system and unilaterally declare people guilty: that's not a function of his branch of government. That's why Trump always throws a big tantrum at budget time, because he demands a bunch of money for his wall and congress keeps telling him to go piss up a rope.

BTW, the congressional majority that approved aid to Ukraine was overwhelming and bipartisan. Those people had all already looked at Ukraine, confirmed that it was probably a good idea to help them fight off Russian insurrectionists waging war in their eastern territories, and sent them the money. If Trump had shut the fuck up and allowed congress to do its job, he wouldn't be in this mess.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Where's the lie? There was a bureaucratic hold-up.

The White House initially claimed that the Office of Management and Budget was behind the freeze, because they needed to review it, but those reviews were completed long before the aid was frozen in June. In reality, the OMB had nothing to do with it - Trump ordered the funds frozen, but told his aids not to inform congress (a violation of appropriations law) and to lie and blame the OMB if they were asked about it.

Here's a little thought exercise for you - if Trump really was concerned that Ukraine was corrupt and was acting within his authority to freeze the funds until he was satisfied that they weren't going to fuel corruption, why did he release them as soon as the whistleblower complaint was filed? Why did he try to blame another part of the government? Why didn't he just stand up and say, "I ordered the funds frozen, because I am concerned about corruption in Ukraine?"

Answer: because that's a bullshit excuse and Trump could not give less of a shit about foreign corruption, save how he could use it to further his own ambitions. He was trying to deflect because he knew what he was doing was illegal and when the whistleblower complaint went out, he realized he'd been caught, so he released it to try and stave off the damage.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We don't know when Trump learned of the situation in Ukraine

First off, I have to say that your argument that Trump was too stupid to realize something that was literally part of his job to be refreshingly honest about his capabilities as president.

That being said, we do know when Trump knew of the situation in Ukraine, because various people have testified about it. Trump disliked Ukraine, because he latched onto conspiracy theories that it was actually them that hacked the election and they did so as a false-flag on behalf of the Democrats (reminder: 100% of all US security agencies have confirmed that it was Russia, not Ukraine, that conducted the hack and they did so to get Trump elected because Putin hated Clinton and feared her as president due to actions she took against Russia as Obama's Secretary of State) and also apparently saw them as useful for smearing his leading Democrat rival.

Again, Trump personally intervened to freeze the aid in June. He was well aware of what was going on long before that phone call occurred.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Further Trump's approval rating is good

Fact check: Mostly false.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump's aggregate approval rating is currently 42.7% and even Ramussen - which notably skews in his favour - doesn't put him over 50%.

Trump is the only president to never have an approval rating above 50%. He is less popular than every president at this point in their careers since they started recording the numbers.

Most people understand that Trump is an incompetent, yammering boob, he just has this weird cult of personality that apparently thinks that an overweight balding guy with a fake tan and a comb-over is the height of alpha-male status and refuses to understand that he was a criminal and a crook before entering into politics and absolutely nothing has changed since he got elected.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

zebatov posted...

Someone here cares more about politics in another country than they do in the country they live in and who they vote for that gets a minority government here.

I'm not even sure what you attempted to say in this post.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So, what about Trump's behavior is objectionable?

Well, let's see here:

1) Withholding congressionally apportioned funds, for starters. Congress has the power of the purse and budgets are where the legislative branch's power is at its nadir. Trump does not have the authority to withhold money that has been congressionally apportioned. The president has the power to temporarily hold funds only in a narrow group of emergency situations and only for a maximum of 45 days without congressional approval (suffice to say there was no emergency in Ukraine and he did not have congressional approval).

2) Lying about it. Congress was not informed that the funds were being withheld and presidential aids were instructed to lie or mislead anyone in congress who asked, by claiming that there was a bureaucratic hold-up rather than stating that Trump had stopped up the funds.

3) Attempting to use the withholding of funds and a sought-after White House meeting to pressure Zelenskiy into publicly announcing an investigation for nakedly political purposes. Note how for the first three years of Trump's presidency - notably when Biden was not a presidential candidate - Trump did nothing. Only now, with Biden leading the polls and looking to be a serious threat to Trump's already-tenuous chances of re-election, has he decided this is a serious issue.

4) Giving serious credence to an internet conspiracy theory (the Crowdstrike nonsense) because Trump's fragile snowflake ego is still upset by the idea that Russia intervened on his behalf to help him win the election, something literally every US intelligence agency has established is fact.

5) Failing to follow the proper procedure for an investigation. In the event that Trump was serious that he wanted an investigation purely for non-political reasons, there is a process for that and it is not "go talk to my personal attorney, who is not a government representative" (possible Logan Act violation right there). What Trump should have done, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, is gone through the American ambassador to Ukraine and the American embassy, who would liaise with Ukrainian counterparts and set out the appropriate steps.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It seems clear that Biden arranged for his son to have a job at a company that has had shady dealings in the past.

Literally no evidence has come forward suggesting that the elder Biden had any role in getting his son a job. Burisma probably wanted his son on the board so they would have access to his rolodex, but that's not illegal (and if you're upset about ex-politicians and/or their relatives getting cushy board jobs despite having no qualifications, you're going to have a long, long, long list of people to go through, spanning the entire political spectrum).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Trump learns of this and asks Ukraine to assist the US in getting to bottom of that.

"Assist the US"? Then why isn't there an American investigation into this? Why is Trump getting Ukraine to do his dirty work?

Answer: because it's spurious charges and Trump knows it. This is like Hillary's e-mails (doubly hilarious, given that Trump is using an unsecured phone to conduct government business, despite numerous attempts to get him to stop) - bullshit that he can use to smear his opponent so that his own scumminess and criminal misdeeds don't look quite so bad in comparison.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If it were anyone other than Trump making the request the media stories would be about the Biden foreign nepotism scandal.

What foreign nepotism scandal?

Again, you don't seem to get this: there is absolutely no evidence that Joe Biden did anything improper in Ukraine or elsewhere. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

No one has suggested that Biden got his kid the job. No witnesses have alleged it, no evidence has emerged to suggest it, this is entirely made up Trumpian bullshit to try and distract from the fact that Donald Trump, president of the United States, illegally used congressionally apportioned funds to solicit a bribe from the Ukrainian government in an effort to harm his most politically dangerous opponent heading into an election year. That's it.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Phantom_Nook posted...

https://i.imgur.com/jMkSohQ.jpg

Apparently some people missed this.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They aren't investigating a political opponent. They're investigating a company within their country.

Trump mentioned Biden several times in his famous "perfect" transcript (and apparently, according to the sworn testimony of one of the parties to the call, an entire sub-conversation about Biden was removed from the transcript despite his request to have it added in); the word "Burisma" does not appear even once.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

and what happened with a preosecutor in their legal system that was looking into that company.

Viktor Shokin was not looking into Burisma. The investigation was left to go dormant before the EU, the IMF, and the US started pushing for his ouster. Hell, conduct like that is exactly *why* those groups (notably consisting of more than just Biden and more than just the United States) wanted him gone.

BTW, Shokin was legendarily corrupt, several of his prosecutors quit while alleging serious ethical breaches in his office (two others were found with the proceeds of bribes in their possession), and he failed to prosecute any contemporary or prior members of Ukraine's government, despite ample evidence. Ordinary Ukrainians were protesting and demanding he be removed from his post. If you're trying to protect your son from a corruption investigation (more on that in a second), removing a prosecutor who is soft on corruption isn't really a winning move.

Also worth noting: Shokin's successor re-opened the investigation into Burisma, with nary a whisper of objection from the US. The investigation, along with a parallel UK investigation that was launched because the Brits were concerned that Shokin was leaving the investigation to die, both determined that there were no grounds for charges.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The Ukraine investigation into Burisma is needed to determine if there is cause to investigate Biden for corruption.

The allegations against Burisma date to several years before Hunter Biden was involved with the company. Ukraine's anti-corruption force even released a statement on this matter, clarifying that all matters under investigation dealt with transactions that were completed between 2010 and 2012, with Biden not joining the company in any capacity until 2014. The Ukrainians have confirmed that Hunter Biden is not, was not, and never has been a subject of any investigation or any allegations of wrongdoing.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The Ukrainian president says he didn't know about the delay in aid when he agreed to the request.

Which, even if true (which I doubt - Zelenskiy seems to be just keeping his head down at this point, given how dependent he is on American military aid) changes absolutely nothing.

If a cop pulls me over, claims he suspects I'm driving under the influence, then offers to let me go if I pay him $500, he is guilty of solicitation of a bribe. This is true:
1) Regardless of whether I take him up on his offer
2) Regardless of whether I actually was doing anything illegal
3) Regardless of whether he eventually lets me go (whether or not I paid the bribe)
and
4) Regardless of whether I felt any pressure from his offer (bribery does not require the solicited party to feel pressure; that's what separates it from extortion)

Even if Zelenskiy had no idea that aid was being withheld, that changes absolutely nothing about what Trump did and it's *his* behaviour - not Zelenskiy's - that is the issue here.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

He says that while failing to acknowledge that nothing is impartial about the house

1000 former prosecutors, consisting of both Democrats and Republicans, have put out a signed statement that Trump has committed crimes while in office and that if such crimes were put before them they would have charged him if not for the protections afforded by the office he holds.

While I'm not disputing that the House is partisan, Trump's crimes are not. By any reasonable analysis of the facts, Trump is guilty of crimes that the constitution specifically calls out as impeachable offences.

Zeus posted...

and that even before Trump took office Democrats were calling for his impeachment.

And? Even ignoring that a handful of the party's left flank do not in any way represent a representative sample of the Democratic Party, in what way does this statement affect the argument regarding whether or not he committed impeachable crimes?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

It's cool. I know you're just prepping your anus for what everyone knows will be a failure just like every other coup attempt the dems make

Apparently following a process laid out in the constitution is a coup.

Who knew.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

And yes he will be exonerated because in the transcript he never outright says that he's withholding aid for biden info

Having your case dismissed is not the same thing as being exonerated. OJ Simpson was declared Not Guilty because even though the evidence implicated him, the prosecutors failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here there's even less of a chance of that happening because the senate is not an impartial jury. Even before the full facts of the case were known, most people - even hardcore Democrats - were already calling that the senate wouldn't vote to impeach unless Trump's numbers absolutely cratered and forced their hand.

And yes, you're right, the transcript never does outright say that he's withholding aid for the Biden info. But a parade of witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the situation sure did, and their testimony is about as damning an indictment as I've ever seen in a political corruption case.

Not to mention Trump just immediately brings up Biden and Crowdstrike directly after Zelenskiy talks about the substantial aid the US has given Ukraine, leading in with those famous ten words, "I would like you to do us a favour, though". That may not be Trump saying, "I will not release the aid until you do the following things for me", but it's about as close as you're going to get. Criminals generally try to keep their words vague to avoid incriminating themselves on conversations that might be recorded.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

streamofthesky posted...

(including waiting around for specific times of the day and starting over if you miss one for a quest) are.

The 3DS remake fixed that by allowing the Song of Double Time to warp you to any hour you wanted, instead of just the next dawn/dusk.

streamofthesky posted...

And if he thought that was annoying, he should try it on the GC on the Zelda collection disc, like I experienced it. Glitches (and fairly common ones, apparently) that crash/freeze the game are NOT ACCEPTABLE in a game where you have such limited ability to save!!!

Why the hell would you do that to yourself? I love Majora's Mask - it's hands down my favourite Zelda game and one of my favourite games of all time - but even I couldn't bring myself to get through that horrible, horrible port.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"Immortal" means "not mortal". And "mortal" only means "subject to death". So, being immortal means you cannot die, but it doesn't necessarily include not aging. It just means you can't die from aging. Nor does it preclude you from losing limbs, or remaining healthy in any way.

Never said it did - literally all I said was that immortals cannot die, whereas ageless beings can. I said nothing about injury or degeneration.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's not so much the individual act as much as the constant accumulation of regrets and sorrow.

And why would love and good memories not accumulate the same way?

This is why I say that I sometimes think people have a fatalistic view of immortality, one that's often influenced by fiction more than critical thought (Highlander being an excellent example).

If anything, I think an immortal would be more at peace with the notion of death and impermanence, because they would get very experienced with it. And speaking as someone who has watched a large number of relatives pass - some old and at the end of a full life, some young and tragically lost in their prime, some in between - it really does get easier the more often you do it. You develop what I characterize as a healthier view of death, that it is the natural conclusion to life that all face eventually. Grief is not a heartache that never goes away - not unless you allow it to be. You simply come to reflect fondly on the times you had together, cognizant of the fact that your time with *everyone* is limited, because either you or they will eventually pass on. The only thing that being an immortal changes about that equation is that it will always be the other person rather than you.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Aladdin

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And that's not even taking into account that even if you're immortal and invulnerable, you presumably still feel pain

Why would you feel pain if you're invulnerable?

Pain is the body's sensory response to the destruction of cells. If those cells aren't being destroyed (because invulnerability), what would trigger the pain response?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Llamachama posted...

All the people wishing for immortality do not realize it's repercussions.

You will never want to connect with anyone because they will die and you will keep outliving them. It will be a very depressing and lonely life. Sure it will be good at first but..

Want to fall in love? You will have to watch all your lovers die while you live on.

Want a great friendship? They will all grow old and die while you remain.

Be careful what you wish for.

You realize none of this is all that different from a normal, non-immortal life, right?

You have to watch your friends and loved ones grow old anyways, and odds are high that at least a couple of them will predecease you, possibly by decades.

I've always thought the, "You'll outlive anyone you care about!" argument is a weak one against immortality. Sure you will... and then you can go make new ones. It's not like you only ever get one set of friends in life and that's it. Nothing's stopping you from just getting out there and meeting new people.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

darcandkharg31 posted...

people are saying immortality but you can still die if you get shot or something, like Elves are immortal but you can still hack ones head off

No elves are ageless, not immortal.

Ageless implies that you never get old and cannot die of natural causes (usually, but not always, including disease and other infirmities). Immortality, by the purest definition of the word, is complete immunity from death in any way shape or form. You cannot die, cannot be killed, cannot end your own existence.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

...when I've actually bought something from a site so that it doesn't keep showing me ads for it.

Like, I bought some custom Christmas cards from a site the other day and since then every other ad I've seen on Youtube is for custom Christmas cards from that site. Mr. Ad Robot, do you not realize that my Christmas card shopping is now done for the year and you are wasting your efforts?

And any time I buy something off eBay I can guarantee that for the next week I will see ads for that same product being sold on eBay, just in case I want to buy it again.

I don't mind targeted ads, but is it so much to ask that they not ask me to re-buy stuff I already have?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I recall the Panzer Dragoon Saga fights being strategically fun, though it's been many years since I played it.

The final boss of Fire Emblem Fates: Conquest was all kinds of fun (and balls-out hard) from a tactical perspective.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Dang, living the dream.

Depends on how much those dividends are.

I mean, my side business (which I own) pays me in dividends as well, but it also doesn't make very much money, so those payments aren't much. My day job is an hourly wage job and that's what actually pays the bills for me.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

No, I'm not talking as in squad builds, I'm talking you get more cards with the actual models you buy.

Certainly, all else being equal, I'd be happier with receiving multiple small ships over one big ship for that reason alone.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I got out of the game when they switched to 2E, but if 1E logic still holds then more smaller ships is better if only because you get more upgrade cards to go along with them.

Dunno if they've changed how that works between editions, though.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

quigonzel posted...

I don't care what anyone says, The Last Jedi made Luke a far more interesting character and had me caring about him more than I ever had before. I love Luke's portrayal.

100% with you on that one.

I've never bought the argument that Luke's actions were out-of-character and that he should have been more pacifistic and wise. Luke has *never* been pacifistic and wise. He was always headstrong, the type of person who ignored conventional wisdom and leapt before he looked. He followed his heart, not his head and if he had a defining character weakness, it's that he always felt that he knew best and that his instincts (i.e. the Force) would unerringly guide him to the correct path. That was his greatest strength in the OT (he discarded the opinions of two Jedi masters who tried to tell him that Anakin Skywalker was dead, subsumed entirely into the evil that was Darth Vader, and therefore only by killing him could he hope to prevail) and TLJ turned it into his biggest weakness.

And yes, I absolutely loved his description of the old Jedi order and its failings, because it finally lines everything up with what we see in the prequels. Obi-Wan in the OT painted the Jedi Order as something very different than what we saw it as in the prequels. Obi-Wan was the optimist, the nostalgic, the man who saw the Jedi Order at its most idealistic. Luke became the pessimist, the pragmatist, the man who judged the Order based on its worst failings.

And Mark Hamill fucking killed it in TLJ. For whatever gripes anyone has about the movie, I don't think even its worst critics can deny that. He absolutely nailed the "tortured old master", yet was still able to channel some of that OT Luke magic when talking to Yoda (proving as solidly as ever that you never fully grow up for those who knew you as a child).

I can understand a lot of the complaints about TLJ, even the ones I don't agree with, but I will fight anyone who says that Hamill's Luke was anything less than perfect.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You've really just undercut my respect for your opinions here.

Lloyd's absolutely terrible. It's not entirely his fault, and he definitely didn't deserve the real life abuse he got over it, but... still bad.

I'm sensing some definite inconsistency in your argument here.

You make this point after spending several paragraphs explaining why Christensen's awfulness isn't his fault and is purely because Lucas is a shitty director. Then you rip on Lloyd here, then your very next point seems to double back again and say that maybe it isn't Lloyd and he was fine and it was Lucas's terrible script.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"He's not bad because many kid actors are bad" really isn't a justifiable argument, though.

That's not really what I'm saying.

Personally, I think Lloyd carried the script he was given about as well as anyone could. On repeated viewings of TPM, he mostly just fades into the background for me. He's not great, but no one is in that movie.

I will say that if you gave me a cosmic choice of having three prequels starring Jake Lloyd or three starring Hayden Christensen, I would pick Lloyd every single time and it's not even particularly close. For however bad some of Lloyd's lines were, I still have never cringed harder than I did during the romance scenes of AotC and RotS (and while Portman had the same awful script, at least her delivery was solid)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Yes, but those films would have been uninspiring regardless of who the lead was, because they weren't very good films.

Both of them reviewed well and made money.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Natalie Portman has gone on to be a critical darling, but in a different world with a few shittier directors early on and she'd be seen much, much, much worse.

It's funny you mention this, because Portman herself has said that Star Wars nearly ended her career, but she managed to get signed on to Black Swan, which she killed in and which served as a revival of sorts. Christensen managed to get not one but two opportunities to do the same and failed to really capitalize on either of them.

That, to me, highlights the difference between them. Portman needed just one decent movie to prove her chops; Christensen got two and did nothing with them.

I don't claim to have watched his entire filmography, but the films I have seen him in outside of Star Wars (which consisted of Jumper and at least one other one whose title I don't remember) didn't give me any better an impression of his acting abilities.

I don't disagree at all with your assertion that no one could really flourish with a script and direction as terrible as they got (McGregor was the closest and even then he was still hindered by it), but I don't buy the argument that Christensen had much higher of a ceiling.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Change solely for the sake of change is rarely a good thing, though.

I wouldn't say that this was change purely for the sake of change. Johnson felt he could tell a more interesting Star Wars story by breaking with convention. Whether you think he succeeded or failed at that, it was his decision, not one made because someone felt that the movie "had to change".

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Even the success of Rogue One will likely be ignored in favor of seeing Solo (itself hurt by the backlash to TLJ) as an argument against change.

Solo's performance had little-to-nothing to do with TLJ and I hope Disney themselves are smart enough to realize that.

The only reason why Solo was considered a failure was because it went through awful production hell and basically had to be redone from scratch after they were halfway through the project. It was supposed to be a slimmed down, less expensive Star Wars movie to produce, yet it doubled its initial budget and wound up being the most expensive Star Wars movie ever, blowing past both TLJ and TFA (it is, as of today, the 7th most expensive movie ever made). Then, to top it off, there was absolute shit for advertising and instead of releasing it during the holidays, as Lucasfilm and Kathleen Kennedy were pushing for (seeking to make Star Wars a marquee December film series, the same way LotR was 15 years ago), they stuck to a May release window which, stupidly, put them in competition with themselves.

Solo was forced to go up against Infinity War and Disney, not wanting to hurt Infinity War's profits, made Solo the undercard. Deadpool 2 was also being released at that time, so Solo was up against a pair of nerd blockbusters. And still, in spite of that, it still pulled in almost half a billion dollars.

Had Solo not fucked itself over with production issues and actually been given decent marketing support, it likely would have been reasonably successful. Hopefully Disney has learned that lesson.

So no, if Disney is gunshy, it is not "solely" because of Johnson. Keep in mind that if we're talking about box office hauls, TLJ grossed $1.3 billion and was, at the time, the 9th highest grossing film ever (it's currently at 13th). I still think the backlash to TLJ was more a vocal minority (albeit a not insignificant one) than a large group of people, given that critical reviews and polls of actual confirmed movie-goers had largely positive reviews, while Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic both confirmed that the movie had been review-bombed on their sites.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The movie as a whole is a confusing mess that does little to pay off anything that happened before or set up anything to happen after. For all the flaws of the prequels (and there are SO many), Lucas was at least trying to tell a single cohesive story.

You can't really fault Johnson for that, though.

If Disney wanted that sort of an approach, they should have mapped out the entire story in advance, or at least stuck to a single director/producer. I don't really see the wisdom in doing what they did and asking one director to pick up a story that another was right in the middle of telling.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'd argue this is only the case because the movie that follows it makes no effort to follow up on anything, continue anything, or expand on anything. Had Episode VIII built on the foundation that VII established, VII would be more important to the overall narrative.

And yet, you could say the same thing about Episode I - it is by far the most isolated of any of the films and you could show someone Episode II first (assuming you didn't like them) and tell them it was the first episode and, as long as they don't see the title card, they probably wouldn't know any better - but its plot holds up significantly better because it's not a retread of something else we've already seen before.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Again, this is you trying to have things both ways. Did Abrams set up multiple plot-points that could be paid off in future films, thus hemming in Johnson's creativity, or did Abrams not establish anything, meaning Johnson only has himself to blame for not really coming up with anything better?

I'm having it both ways because it kind of is both.

Abrams set up multiple plot points that he expected future films to delve into, thus boxing in Johnson; however, the nature of those plot points left them with no options for decent payoff, meaning Johnson was forced into picking the best of bad options to free himself from them and move on.

But that's not actually what I was saying with this point. What I'm saying is that TFA relied on nostalgia for its success, but there's not a lot of meat on that bone and if TLJ had been an ESB-retread the same way that TFA was an ANH-retread, I suspect it would have been viewed a lot more negatively than it was.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Again, deconstructions CAN work in the proper context. Make a completely deconstructionist narrative or radically tonal dissonant story as part of a TV show like the Mandalorian, or as a stand-alone film like Rogue One, and people will be far more open to it.

I would argue, though, that doing it as a "side-project" severely limits its impact.

I think that's what made TLJ so effective as a deconstruction - they weren't gambling with house money, this was a main-branch film and Disney/Johnson showed they were willing to take a risk on it. I, for one, enjoyed that element (and yes, I acknowledge that many did not) and enjoyed the fact that for the first time ever while watching a Star Wars movie I had no idea what was going to happen. All of a sudden anything up to and including the bad guys winning and the protagonists dying was on the table. None of the other movies in the series have had the stones to do that.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The Rose and Finn scenes were almost entirely pointless (and Benicio del Toro's performance was needlessly annoying), and most of the Poe scenes were needlessly awkward and feel like a combination of "We don't know what to do with this character" and "Everyone needs to be stupid for the movie to happen".

Setting aside the fact that I liked del Toro's character (and am disappointed he apparently isn't returning in Episode IX), I've never understood the "Rose and Finn scenes are pointless" complaint.

They weren't sent off on an adventure for no reason at all, they had a specific job to do. That they failed in doing that job doesn't mean those scenes were pointless; it was one of the ways that the movie decided to fake out the audience and I felt it was one of the more effective ones.

One of the tropes that I get a little more annoyed at than I probably should is the "It's a one-in-a-million chance, but if absolutely everything goes right and we get a lot of luck on our side, it'll all work out perfectly!" ...and then it does.

Episode VIII was the first time I can recall - in *any* fictional work that I've read/watched/played - where the protagonists plot out this one-in-a-million scheme and it actually does what it would do in real life and blows up in their faces. The subsequent scene where everything suddenly goes to shit, the Resistance starts getting blasted to pieces, and Holdo is forced into her own desperate gambit are the high point of the film (and I honestly wouldn't have been disappointed if they'd ended it there). That scene is only possible thanks to the set-up provided by the Finn/Rose subplot - it is anything but pointless.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

and most of the Poe scenes were needlessly awkward and feel like a combination of "We don't know what to do with this character" and "Everyone needs to be stupid for the movie to happen".

To be fair, Abrams had this problem too. Hell, originally Poe's "death" at the start of TFA was supposed to have him actually die; Abrams was forced to rewrite the script when Oscar Isaac and Kathleen Kennedy complained about him being killed off. I'm not sure anyone has figured out what they want the character to actually do since then.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!