Board 8 > Google censorship cracks down on anti-war left-wing sites, too

(+) Yeah! (+)

Vlado posted...

Are you serious? Did you even read the first sentence in my previous post? Are you expecting anything else than globalist media trying to spin that person into someone important, in desperate hopes that this farce can live on for a bit more?

There's nothing that holds your story together.

Again, how do you comment on her anti-Trump facebook posts? Why does Putin send someone to Trump who offers nothing of use?

You are trusting people with clear agenda - and for no other reason than it matching your own agenda. I trust the facts. That's the difference between us.

Okay, Vlado just used the "no u" argument. Yup, done here.
---

Vlado.



Attempting to murder someone is illegal.

Attempting to swing an election is illegal.



It doesn't matter if they succeeded at everything that were trying. The fact that they were trying is still illegal.



But you can't even wrap your head around that much.
---

Vlado posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

He didn't just "talk" to her. He explicitly stated that he would love her assistance. And that's over the legal line, regardless of your personal feelings on where the line should be.

Is it? Let's see the law in question. Considering it was obviously bait and nothing of value was obtained, I doubt it'd lead to a guilty verdict even if there was such a law, which I doubt.

boy I sure am glad a bulgarian video game critic is here to explain all the minutiae of united states law
---

Espeon posted...

Okay, Vlado just used the "no u" argument. Yup, done here.

Are you really, though
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Vlado.



Attempting to murder someone is illegal.

Attempting to swing an election is illegal.



It doesn't matter if they succeeded at everything that were trying. The fact that they were trying is still illegal.



But you can't even wrap your head around that much.

Attempted murder is a crime. Attempted Election Swinging isn't... lol

Though, there are things that you could be doing to "attempt" to swing the election which are illegal.
---

Things such as lying on federal disclosure forms about which foreign agents you met with and why
---

HashtagSEP posted...

lmao

Goodbye

lol, that sure convinced me.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Vlado.



Attempting to murder someone is illegal.

Attempting to swing an election is illegal.



It doesn't matter if they succeeded at everything that were trying. The fact that they were trying is still illegal.



But you can't even wrap your head around that much.

If there's a law that was broken, let's see it. Cite which letter of the law was broken. US laws are available to the public, you should have no problem citing it.
---

All those seeking a security clearance and access to classified information are required to complete a Standard Form 86, or SF-86. This lengthy (over 100 pages) questionnaire is painfully familiar to many government employees. The federal government uses the information in the SF-86 to conduct a background investigation and determine whether access to classified information is appropriate.

The SF-86 requires you to report detailed information about your personal background, employment history, education, marital status, family members, places you have lived, travel, and much more. It also asks about foreign contacts and foreign activities.

In particular, question 20B.6 asks whether the applicant has had any contact at all with any foreign governments or their representatives in the past seven years. If the answer is “yes,” the applicant must provide detailed information about those contacts.

All high-level members of the new administration would have filled out an SF-86. The allegation concerning Kushner, Flynn, Sessions, and others is that when completing the form they failed to report their various meetings with Russian officials.

The instructions for the SF-86 include the following warning:

The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment.

Now, this does not apply to Don Jr in and of itself. But it DOES apply to Kushner's presence at the meeting, and when you extend it out to Trump Sr knowingly crafting statements to obscure the intent or outcome of the meeting, then you get into Obstruction of Justice.
---

Vlado posted...

And that's why you guys are so clueless about geopolitics. You are controlled by your childish emotions.

uh, i never even said what i thought about the content of what don jr. was saying in the interview. you get that people can be unlikable even if you agree with them, right?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

All those seeking a security clearance and access to classified information are required to complete a Standard Form 86, or SF-86. This lengthy (over 100 pages) questionnaire is painfully familiar to many government employees. The federal government uses the information in the SF-86 to conduct a background investigation and determine whether access to classified information is appropriate.

The SF-86 requires you to report detailed information about your personal background, employment history, education, marital status, family members, places you have lived, travel, and much more. It also asks about foreign contacts and foreign activities.

In particular, question 20B.6 asks whether the applicant has had any contact at all with any foreign governments or their representatives in the past seven years. If the answer is %u201Cyes,%u201D the applicant must provide detailed information about those contacts.

All high-level members of the new administration would have filled out an SF-86. The allegation concerning Kushner, Flynn, Sessions, and others is that when completing the form they failed to report their various meetings with Russian officials.

The instructions for the SF-86 include the following warning:

The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment.

Now, this does not apply to Don Jr in and of itself. But it DOES apply to Kushner's presence at the meeting, and when you extend it out to Trump Sr knowingly crafting statements to obscure the intent or outcome of the meeting, then you get into Obstruction of Justice.

Nonsense. Read what you just quoted. Nothing to do with the event we're discussing. Again, the woman is NOT a government official. Representing a government agency in a couple of cases years ago does not make you a government official.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

uh, i never even said what i thought about the content of what don jr. was saying in the interview. you get that people can be unlikable even if you agree with them, right?

My observation stands.

Vlado posted...

Again, how do you comment on her anti-Trump facebook posts? Why does Putin send someone to Trump who offers nothing of use?

Still waiting for answers to these, btw.
---

Vlado posted...

My observation stands.

no, it doesn't. disliking people is not "childish" (it's a fundamental aspect of adulthood), i'm not "controlled" by my emotions (whatever the fuck that means), and my dislike for people says nothing about my knowledge about geopolitics. so your "observation" is total bullshit.
---

Vlado posted...

Nonsense. Read what you just quoted. Nothing to do with the event we're discussing. Again, the woman is NOT a government official. Representing a government agency in a couple of cases years ago does not make you a government official.

First off, read it again. It's not limited to government officials. That just makes it more blatant such that there is a particular question dealing with the premise, but that question isn't the only question. The concept of private foreign citizens fucking with an election isn't impossible. That's even, for argument's sake, ignoring any potential governmental ties, which do exist (at the very least) in the same way I have ties to a former employer.

Second, for someone who'll buy into all sorts of conspiracies when it suits him, you of all people should be skeptical when someone claims they aren't working with a government. Or are you the guy who thinks an undercover cop has to tell you they're a cop just because you asked?
---

Will you agree that, if she IS actually an agent of the Russian government, that it would be illegal under that clause to obscure the meeting on government disclosure forms?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

My observation stands.

no, it doesn't. disliking people is not "childish" (it's a fundamental aspect of adulthood), i'm not "controlled" by my emotions (whatever the fuck that means), and my dislike for people says nothing about my knowledge about geopolitics. so your "observation" is total bullshit.

Oh, it totally stands. Disliking people in general is one thing, getting your panties in a bunch over "the face someone makes" is another. That's very childish.

The fact that you and many other liberals are controlled by your emotions impedes your ability to think rationally. And without thinking rationally, there's even less of a chance for you to understand complex matters such as geopolitics.

And I won't even go into other reasons, e.g. you not reading history or pre-20th century philosophy. Your preference for reading somebody's annotations over the cold facts themselves says all that needs to be said.

kevwaffles posted...

Vlado posted...

Nonsense. Read what you just quoted. Nothing to do with the event we're discussing. Again, the woman is NOT a government official. Representing a government agency in a couple of cases years ago does not make you a government official.

First off, read it again. It's not limited to government officials. That just makes it more blatant such that there is a particular question dealing with the premise, but that question isn't the only question. The concept of private foreign citizens fucking with an election isn't impossible. That's even, for argument's sake, ignoring any potential governmental ties, which do exist (at the very least) in the same way I have ties to a former employer.

Second, for someone who'll buy into all sorts of conspiracies when it suits him, you of all people should be skeptical when someone claims they aren't working with a government. Or are you the guy who thinks an undercover cop has to tell you they're a cop just because you asked?

"In particular, question 20B.6 asks whether the applicant has had any contact at all with any foreign governments or their representatives in the past seven years."

Jakyl25 posted...

Will you agree that, if she IS actually an agent of the Russian government, that it would be illegal under that clause to obscure the meeting on government disclosure forms?

Doesn't even matter until it is proven that she is. Still waiting for these answers, btw:

Vlado posted...

Again, how do you comment on her anti-Trump facebook posts? Why does Putin send someone to Trump who offers nothing of use?

---

Vlado posted...

getting your panties in a bunch over "the face someone makes" is another. That's very childish.

no, it's not. tons of adults do this.

The fact that you and many other liberals are controlled by your emotions impedes your ability to think rationally. And without thinking rationally, there's even less of a chance for you to understand complex matters such as geopolitics.

lol. yeah, all liberals are "controlled by emotions and irrational," while the arguments conservatives make are 100% rational and logical. just look at this gem, for instance:

http://usbacklash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pretty-Conservative-Women-Ugly-Liberal-Women.jpg

not sure why you're even debating me if that's how you really feel about me, btw. i'm completely irrational and controlled by emotions, so what's the point? you can tell me the sky is blue all you want, i'll just keep saying the sky is purple because i'm so overwhelmed by my emotions.

And I won't even go into other reasons, e.g. you not reading history or pre-20th century philosophy. Your preference for reading somebody's annotations over the cold facts themselves says all that needs to be said.

interesting that you're completely aware of how much philosophy and history i've read.
---

1.) Who she prefers to win the election doesn't matter. By ANYONE'S account, she at the very least went to the meeting with the intention of discussing Russian adoption policy in the event Trump won. If that's an important policy issue to her, why would hatred of Trump matter? You're telling us not to be emotionally led with regard to geopolitics, yet you're trying to use her emotions towards Trump against us as though they matter.

2.) That's you taking their word that nothing of substance was presented at the meeting. I'm not sure why you would trust that account of the meeting considering Don Jr has already changed his recollection of the meeting multiple times.
---

Vlado posted...

"In particular, question 20B.6 asks whether the applicant has had any contact at all with any foreign governments or their representatives in the past seven years."

Do you think the entire SF-86 is one question arbitrarily labelled 20B.6? And literally ignore when I brought that up before, and everything in Jakyl's post before that line?

Nor does that address you're willful ignorance of the mere possibility of someone literally saying "no" instead of "yes".
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

getting your panties in a bunch over "the face someone makes" is another. That's very childish.

no, it's not. tons of adults do this.

So tons of adults act childish sometimes - something we already knew. Just because other people do it doesn't mean it's not irrational when we do it.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

The fact that you and many other liberals are controlled by your emotions impedes your ability to think rationally. And without thinking rationally, there's even less of a chance for you to understand complex matters such as geopolitics.

lol. yeah, all liberals are "controlled by emotions and irrational," while the arguments conservatives make are 100% rational and logical. just look at this gem, for instance:

http://usbacklash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pretty-Conservative-Women-Ugly-Liberal-Women.jpg

not sure why you're even debating me if that's how you really feel about me, btw. i'm completely irrational and controlled by emotions, so what's the point? you can tell me the sky is blue all you want, i'll just keep saying the sky is purple because i'm so overwhelmed by my emotions.

You're not so bad. You're just misguided. I had many of the same silly ideals 10 years ago... There are other people here who have embraced the globalist ideology DESPITE (or maybe because of?) realising the awful things it would lead to. You simply do not realise them, you only see the ideal (and impossible) scenario, which is why I still have a positive view of you, all criticism aside. Your "actions" may be leading humanity in the wrong direction, but, unlike the other group I contrast you with, your "intentions" are good. Of course, you should not care about my assessment, only your own.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

And I won't even go into other reasons, e.g. you not reading history or pre-20th century philosophy. Your preference for reading somebody's annotations over the cold facts themselves says all that needs to be said.

interesting that you're completely aware of how much philosophy and history i've read.

It's a hunch, but if I'm not correct, feel free to explain how. It's your word against mine, anyway.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

1.) Who she prefers to win the election doesn't matter. By ANYONE'S account, she at the very least went to the meeting with the intention of discussing Russian adoption policy in the event Trump won. If that's an important policy issue to her, why would hatred of Trump matter? You're telling us not to be emotionally led with regard to geopolitics, yet you're trying to use her emotions towards Trump against us as though they matter.

Sure, that's not an impossible explanation. But you have to agree, given her anti-Trump opinions, that it's considerably more likely that she was a part of a setup to eventually try to tarnish Trump, should he win.

We'll never possess all the facts, and until we do, we should go with the most likely explanation.

Jakyl25 posted...

2.) That's you taking their word that nothing of substance was presented at the meeting. I'm not sure why you would trust that account of the meeting considering Don Jr has already changed his recollection of the meeting multiple times.

It's not just "their word." Nothing that helped Trump's campaign came out of that meeting, that's a fact. If there was really dirt on Clinton, it obviously would've been used during the campaign.

Quite clearly, Don Jr. was lied to to get him to attend the meeting. This is a fact demonstrated in the e-mails.


kevwaffles posted...

Do you think the entire SF-86 is one question arbitrarily labelled 20B.6? And literally ignore when I brought that up before, and everything in Jakyl's post before that line?

Nor does that address you're willful ignorance of the mere possibility of someone literally saying "no" instead of "yes".

That's what Jakyl quoted, so that's why I'm commenting on. If there's another relevant part which wasn't mentioned, bring it to light, and we'll discuss it.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It also asks about foreign contacts and foreign activities.

It's literally the sentence before the one you're focusing on.
---

What about it? Are you implying that they aren't allowed to talk to any foreign citizen or something?
---

Holy shit you can't be THIS stupid.
---

Even if the meeting were not about the election in any way, which I'll remind you has been recanted that it was at this point, YOU STILL HAVE TO REPORT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

No, it's not illegal to talk to a foreign private citizen any more than it's illegal to talk to the Russian diplomat about the weather. But security clearance forms ask you these questions for a reason. Even if you're not literally trying to commit treason, those questions exist to find potential vulnerabilities.
---

Please don't take this topic to 500..
---

He's bound and determined to keep this one alive anyway. I'm not sure why.
---

Only in Vlado Land is it a crazy idea that... If somebody knows they're supposed to disclose all meetings with foreign persons, and they not only purposely don't disclose it, but lie about it numerous times... They've probably got something to hide.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Even if the meeting were not about the election in any way, which I'll remind you has been recanted that it was at this point, YOU STILL HAVE TO REPORT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

No, it's not illegal to talk to a foreign private citizen any more than it's illegal to talk to the Russian diplomat about the weather. But security clearance forms ask you these questions for a reason. Even if you're not literally trying to commit treason, those questions exist to find potential vulnerabilities.

StealThisSheen posted...

Only in Vlado Land is it a crazy idea that... If somebody knows they're supposed to disclose all meetings with foreign persons, and they not only purposely don't disclose it, but lie about it numerous times... They've probably got something to hide.

...except they ask for contacts with FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, not with any random foreign person.
---

Can i see the law that details that, vlado?
---

In particular, question 20B.6 asks whether the applicant has had any contact at all with any foreign governments or their representatives in the past seven years. If the answer is %u201Cyes,%u201D the applicant must provide detailed information about those contacts.

According to what Jakyl quoted.
---

But that's only one question in what can be reasonably assumed to be more than 20 questions.
---

Why did Jakyl cite exactly it then while making his point? If there's a more relevant part, as I said before, quote it and we can discuss it.
---

I really don't think anything else matters

She at least presented herself as a foreign government agent. You knew that when you took the meeting. You gotta report it.
---

Vlado posted...

In particular, question 20B.6 asks whether the applicant has had any contact at all with any foreign governments or their representatives in the past seven years. If the answer is %u201Cyes,%u201D the applicant must provide detailed information about those contacts.

According to what Jakyl quoted.

You quoted "or their representatives".

The meet was literally framed as she was a representative.
---

I would rather live in an authoritarian, globalist-controlled world where all human beings are cattle than live in a eutopian world of eternal peace, freedom and happiness... just because the degree of Vlado's dissatisfaction would be that strong. I would gladly forfeit my being, my very soul, and become the most powerful and influential globalist puppet for no other reason than to troll one person on the internet. It would be glorious.

I found this in "More topics from this board..." btw, if that's relevant at all
---

Jakyl25 posted...

She at least presented herself as a foreign government agent. You knew that when you took the meeting. You gotta report it.

He likely found out she wasn't afterwards. I mean, if we could see that easily on the internet, it's rather naive to believe Trump's campaign wouldn't, at least after the fact.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The meet was literally framed as she was a representative.

"framed as" means nothing. Facts matter in court, not thoughts and feelings.
---

Actually, in the case of intent, thoughts and feeling DO matter in court. That's what intent IS.

This is basic shit, you should be able to grasp it.
---

Vlado posted...

Facts matter in court, not thoughts and feelings.

Hahahahaha
Ahahahahah
Hahahahaha
Ahahahahah
Hahahahaha
Ahahahahah
Hahahahaha
Ahahahahah
Hahahahaha
Ahahahahah
---

lmao, do not mistake your ridiculous desired reality for actual reality. Intent matters if a crime has actually been committed. Again, facts are the ones that matter in court. Nobody will get thrown in jail because they thought they would harm someone, but didn't.

Sorry, no thought police yet. Or ever.
---

Let me know when you become more familiar with the American legal system.
---

Vlado posted...

Nobody will get thrown in jail because they thought they would harm someone, but didn't.

"A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances."

Learn US Law before trying to argue it, kthx.

EDIT: And no, intent doesn't only matter if a crime has actually been committed. Again, learn before speak thx
---

I want thought police to happen and when it does I am going to apply to be the global commissioner presiding over it. Vlado will be the first person we investigate, and we will surely put him away for all kinds of thought crimes against glorious globalism.
---

I'm now kind of glad this topic is still around as an archive for Vlado's ineptitude.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

"A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances."

And that applies to Don Jr.'s case how exactly? Again, the woman IS NOT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. Therefore, meeting her is not a crime, much less planning to meet her. Just because someone said she was doesn't suddenly make her one.

To make the "thought crime" example clear to neutral observers (because it's clear a die-hard clinton fanboy like yourself is twisting the law to hopelessly try to convince yourself that Don Jr. broke the law, even though even if he had, that's not getting that loser into the white house or anywhere near ever again), you can get in jail for planning to commit a crime and actually taking actions towards it. Not for thinking about it. Obviously, just because Don Jr. thought he was possibly going to meet with a Russian government official that never existed does not even remotely establish that he was "taking actions towards committing a crime."

A case where Don Jr. would have been at fault is if a Russian government official really did contact the campaign, and the campaign did set up a meeting. It's practically impossible that you do not see the difference.
---

Vlado posted...

Nobody will get thrown in jail because they thought they would harm someone, but didn't.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Vlado posted...

Nobody will get thrown in jail because they thought they would harm someone, but didn't.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Vlado posted...

lmao, do not mistake your ridiculous desired reality for actual reality.

Thought crimes do not, and will never exist.
---

"Wow why am I being arrested for trying to buy thirty pounds of cocaine? I haven't even bought it yet!!! This is a thought crime."
---

Plans for attempted murder seem like thoughts to me.
---

Kenri posted...

"Wow why am I being arrested for trying to buy thirty pounds of cocaine? I haven't even bought it yet!!! This is a thought crime."

Except in this case, the cocaine never existed, so you don't get arrested.
---

"Arrested for a crime I didn't even commit! Attempted murder, now what is that really? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?!"
---

Vlado posted...

Kenri posted...

"Wow why am I being arrested for trying to buy thirty pounds of cocaine? I haven't even bought it yet!!! This is a thought crime."

Except in this case, the cocaine never existed, so you don't get arrested.

If you set up a time and place to buy what you think is cocaine from someone and the cops are watching, it doesn't matter if it's actual cocaine. You make the purchase, you get arrested, charged, and convicted.

Again. You know nothing of our laws.
---