Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 171: Crazy Like a Fox (& Friends)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

but I do know that is a criticism of your posting and not an attack of you as a person

lol. wtf does this even mean?

"i'm not attacking you as a person, i'm just laughing my fucking ass off about how much your posts suck!"

thanks man, that makes me feel a lot better.

I am not sure how you do not know what it means. For example, who was it earlier who was just clearly trolling Lapis?

Yeah, they were pretty shitty posts. Doesn't make him a bad person or whatever.

Again I have zero idea on the context since it was not provided. But, I assume you posted stuff which I considered laughable and silly and that was my response. One of expressing my feelings of finding your posts being laughable to me and of low quality.

I didn't say you hate women because of your posts. I didn't say you were a piece of shit. I didn't say you were whatever etc etc I see a lot on the other side here.

That is the difference.

And the worst part is. I know some of you TRULY believe your insults you throw out here. Like, you aren't just saying them out of frustration or as hyperbole. Some of you actually believe them. That's what I find wildest.

Me and trdl had a brief chat the other day in regards to this. I simply said something like hey, dude. End of the day when you think about it, you really do not really know anything about me. Therefore how can you judge me or assume you know what I am doing or thinking.

He said he agreed I think. So at least some people get it.
---

Corrik posted...

Yeah, they were pretty shitty posts. Doesn't make him a bad person or whatever.

the difference is that you were saying my posts in general are terrible.

if you'd just said "this post you made sucked" i wouldn't have had a problem with that. for instance, GMUN has called plenty of specific posts i've made extremely stupid, which is fine. we still like each other.

but you were saying that i shouldn't wonder why people shit on my posting. spoilers: my posts on this board are a reflection of who i am as a person. i'm not playing a character when i post here. you're seeing the real me. so when you make a comment like that about my posts, it's absolutely a personal insult.
---

Corrik posted...

End of the day when you think about it, you really do not really know anything about me.

also, i don't agree with this at all. how can you say we don't know anything about you when you post here a much as you do?

of course you can say we don't know you as well as your significant other or whatever, but to say "we don't know anything about you" is just wrong.
---

https://twitter.com/ap/status/991713754609078273?s=21

BREAKING: Black men arrested at Starbucks settle with Philadelphia for $1 each and a city pledge of $200K for young entrepreneurs.

Hearty hearty cheers to these guys.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

End of the day when you think about it, you really do not really know anything about me.

also, i don't agree with this at all. how can you say we don't know anything about you when you post here a much as you do?

of course you can say we don't know you as well as your significant other or whatever, but to say "we don't know anything about you" is just wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En4lSQmIWts" data-time="
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/991279620044591105?s=21

It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt!

Believe me! Ive tried!
---

People who say "yinz" are dumb.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

People who say "yinz" are dumb.

i've said before that this triggers me more than anything else about corrik posts, yeah.
---

Thought it was some PC thing he'd picked up that nobody actually used which seemed....contradictory....but turns out it's just some awful Pennsylvanian slang?
---

I was also referring to @Peace___Frog
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Thought it was some PC thing he'd picked up that nobody actually used which seemed....contradictory....but turns out it's just some awful Pennsylvanian slang?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIWdTw7UwAEaTQC.jpg
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

I was also referring to @Peace___Frog

I barely used it when I lived in Athens, you don't know what you're talking about. I mostly started using it when i started working downtown and moved closer to it.

And don't call it pennsylvanian, philly has nothing to do with it. It's a very distinct picksburghese dialect.
---

Too lazy to read the topic, but catching up on news is fun times.

That health letter from the campaign was dictated by Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/harold-bornstein-trump-letter/index.html

And another lawyer quits on Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/02/politics/trump-ty-cobb/index.html

this circus would be amazing if it wasn't, you know, the presidency
---

Rudy must be doing so well that no one else is necessary
---

The Times, citing two people briefed on the matter, said attorney Emmet Flood would replace Cobb as the President continues to grapple with the special counsel investigation led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. Flood represented then-President Bill Clinton during his impeachment process in the late 1990s.

And we all know how smoothly things went for Bill
---

At this point I feel half the legal minds in America know the details of the Trump Investigation.
---

I'm surprised Trump doesn't represent himself. I mean he's the best deal maker.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

I'm surprised Trump doesn't represent himself. I mean he's the best deal maker.

No deal to make when you are innocent bruh.
---

Corrik posted...

Dancedreamer posted...

I'm surprised Trump doesn't represent himself. I mean he's the best deal maker.

No deal to make when you are innocent bruh.

---

Corrik posted...

Dancedreamer posted...

I'm surprised Trump doesn't represent himself. I mean he's the best deal maker.

No deal to make when you are innocent bruh.

Haha.
---

Lol. Sad part is I think he is innocent of the Collusion stuff.

But the way he acts regarding it surely makes you wonder.
---

He's definitely not innocent of obstruction unless you take the view that it's by definition impossible for the president to obstruct (which seems to be the defense a lot of Republicans have retreated to for that one)
---

Corrik posted...

At this point I feel half the legal minds in America know the details of the Trump Investigation.

Most of them probably don't even have the security clearance necessary to know the details, but we know that hasn't stopped this administration before.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

He's definitely not innocent of obstruction unless you take the view that it's by definition impossible for the president to obstruct (which seems to be the defense a lot of Republicans have retreated to for that one)

Are you referring to asking someone to not prosecute Flynn? If so, I do not think that is obstruction. That is him asking.

If you mean something else then possibly.

Obstruction means you hampered an investigation. That wouldn't have done that. Not saying he hasn't done it elsewhere. Just do not think it applies there.
---

Corrik posted...

Are you referring to asking someone to not prosecute Flynn? If so, I do not think that is obstruction. That is him asking.

Its just the President of the United States, asking someone to drop an investigation into his friend.
---

Obstruction is the totality of the conduct he has taken to impede the investigation into himself or his subordinates. It includes things like asking Comey to drop any investigation of Flynn, firing Comey "because of the Russia thing", all of his various threats to Rosenstein/Sessions et al, firing McCabe two days before he would be eligible for his pension to send a message to others in the intelligence community not to cross him, etc. He has repeatedly abused his presidential powers in order to shield himself and his cronies from the consequences of their actions. Any one action may have a semi-plausible legitimate excuse (besides Comey where he straight up admitted it was about the Russia investigation on national television), but taken together it's impossible to escape the conclusion that his goal has been to undermine the rule of law as it applies to himself.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Are you referring to asking someone to not prosecute Flynn? If so, I do not think that is obstruction. That is him asking.

Its just the President of the United States, asking someone to drop an investigation into his friend.

Which he could have ordered them to do, made it impossible for them to have continued to do, or made some other official capacity request or dealing behind the scenes.

I mean, you can take that to court, and you are going to lose relatively everytime I feel.

If that is what you are referring to with obstruction solely, I do not think a sound case is there.

Trump is a bit aloof, so there may be something somewhere. However, that I doubt is going to work.
---

Corrik the law school graduate (top one in his class) strikes again!
---

Peace___Frog posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

I was also referring to @Peace___Frog

I barely used it when I lived in Athens, you don't know what you're talking about. I mostly started using it when i started working downtown and moved closer to it.

And don't call it pennsylvanian, philly has nothing to do with it. It's a very distinct picksburghese dialect.

:V
---

Corrik posted...

Are you referring to asking someone to not prosecute Flynn? If so, I do not think that is obstruction. That is him asking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHC1230OpOg" data-time="
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Are you referring to asking someone to not prosecute Flynn? If so, I do not think that is obstruction. That is him asking.

Its just the President of the United States, asking someone to drop an investigation into his friend.

Which he could have ordered them to do, made it impossible for them to have continued to do, or made some other official capacity request or dealing behind the scenes.

I mean, you can take that to court, and you are going to lose relatively everytime I feel.

If that is what you are referring to with obstruction solely, I do not think a sound case is there.

Trump is a bit aloof, so there may be something somewhere. However, that I doubt is going to work.

Lets skip all the arguing where we tell you youre wrong and you act like were all crazy and just go ahead and tell us the specific instance where youre correct the doesnt apply to this situation.
---

Corrik posted...

Which he could have ordered them to do, made it impossible for them to have continued to do, or made some other official capacity request or dealing behind the scenes.

Well, Comey didnt do it, and then he got fired for, in Trumps words, the Russia investigation.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Which he could have ordered them to do, made it impossible for them to have continued to do, or made some other official capacity request or dealing behind the scenes.

Well, Comey didnt do it, and then he got fired for, in Trumps words, the Russia investigation.

That seems like a lot better of an angle to take in regards to a charge than the one proposed above.
---

Corrik posted...

And before someone points out I called yinz insane above, yeah I did. It was poorly worded. I meant insane in regards to politics. I try to ignore all politics outside of these topics as much as possible (unless politically related) when discussing with yinz. It is something I have suspected some of you fail to be able to do. I seem to remember being attacked quite a few times in other topics by members in this group for differing political opinions elsewhere.

I am able to cordon off politics as a subject that generally gets over exaggerated responses and sometimes nasty responses because people care too much about it, sort of like religion and a few other topics. I try to talk to all of you the same outside of these topics in other topics. Whether it is star wars topics, video game topics, movies, mafia, etc.

I wonder how many of you that is actually true with in reverse. I suspect there is at least a couple here it isn't true of.

Weird, it's almost like contemporary politics actually affect us and the people we care about, so we can't just treat it as a fun hobby that we can ignore whenever.
---

Kenri posted...

Weird, it's almost like contemporary politics actually affect us and the people we care about, so we can't just treat it as a fun hobby that we can ignore whenever.

i think corrik is referring to how, for instance, i attacked him in the depression topic. but - get this - i did that because i thought he was being obnoxious, not because of anything politics-related. of course that didn't stop him from going "OMG YOU'RE ONLY ATTACKING ME BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ON POLITICS."

it's like how he said he gets called a racist and a sexist because "we can't win arguments against him and therefore we have to resort to insults" and not becasue he may have said stuff that could be seen as racist and sexist.

weird how in his interpretations of events, he's always a super reasonable dude and we're always unreasonable, immature lamers who can't handle the slightest bit of criticism.
---

Political opinions can be separated from the rest of individual people a lot of times when it comes to other interactions with them...even a majority of the time probably, right or wrong as it may be. It doesn't take two Libertarians to talk about their GameFAQs Character Battle picks, you know?

The behavior of people during these conversations though -- that carries over more broadly. People who argue in bad faith in politics often argue deceptively with other logical and philosophical situations. People who get too emotional in politics tend to get emotional in other ways. People who listen and talk through topics in politics are generally good for conversations in other ways too. Behaviors can in that way better represent a person than their beliefs.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Kenri posted...

Weird, it's almost like contemporary politics actually affect us and the people we care about, so we can't just treat it as a fun hobby that we can ignore whenever.

i think corrik is referring to how, for instance, i attacked him in the depression topic. but - get this - i did that because i thought he was being obnoxious, not because of anything politics-related. of course that didn't stop him from going "OMG YOU'RE ONLY ATTACKING ME BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ON POLITICS."

it's like how he said he gets called a racist and a sexist because "we can't win arguments against him and therefore we have to resort to insults" and not becasue he may have said stuff that could be seen as racist and sexist.

weird how in his interpretations of events, he's always a super reasonable dude and we're always unreasonable, immature lamers who can't handle the slightest bit of criticism.

1. The person I was talking to said I was helpful to them. You just misread things because you have bias in what you read that I write.

2. You and the other person attacked me openly in a depression topic of all places (talk about tact and great thinking that through. At least the other person acknowledged that was a bit dumb of them.).

3. You argued you been so much more active in the specific topic than me and was relied upon to defend people or some shit from people popping in. I counted posts in the topic. I had more responses in the topic than you and the other person COMBINED. My posts were also in direct talks with the people and their problems and offering my thoughts of how to help them. Yours mostly consisted of few word responses which didn't pertain to much really.

4. You have followed me into multiple topics as well as chaostony, sadly. You can depend on any statement I make will be soundly taken a hard stance against by both of you pretty consistently on any topic. That is actually pretty remarkable. I do not know many people in real life where there is not overlapping of agreement anywhere. You could toss peaf in there with just the not going into other topics with it and eddv with extremely not going into other topics. I have talked to eddv on discord before with no disagreements on things on multiple occasions. (Sorry of confusing lapis with lasy).

I mean, I can overwhelming say that it seems HIGHLY unlikely that these things that NEVER occurred before discussing politics with you all in the past 1.5 years is unrelated. But, hey, maybe they aren't!

Strongly feel you all (whoever the above applies) just can't understand politics is politics. You have your beliefs. I have mine. Not believing things the way you want me to doesn't make me arguing in bad faith or a moron or whatever. Just like in the return. End of the day you separate it because politics is not typical. Same with religion.

I have always said I believe the difference in conservative and liberal ideologies is that one is more theoretical and happy go lucky feeling (liberal) and one is more grounded, down to earth, realistic (conservative).

It is like you have your theoretical result in a lab experiment and your actual result varies because your theoretical result can't account for tons of factors to ever accurately predict the result in real life situations.

It is why I think many start liberal and become conservative later in life. You start full of hope and change and unaware of the realities of life. As they set in and you understand them, you become more conservative in how you view things.

*Shrug*
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Thought it was some PC thing he'd picked up that nobody actually used which seemed....contradictory....but turns out it's just some awful Pennsylvanian slang?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIWdTw7UwAEaTQC.jpg

My biggest regret about moving to Florida is that I've started saying y'all instead of you guys sometimes
---

Corrik posted...

1. The person I was talking to said I was helpful to them.

just because it worked out in this case doesn't mean the tone of your post was appropriate for the topic.

either way, your "IT'S JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ON POLITICS" point was/is bullshit. if you agreed with me 100% on politics and you acted the way you did to andy in the mental health topic, i would have responded the exact same way.

3. You argued you been so much more active in the specific topic than me and was relied upon to defend people or some shit from people popping in. I counted posts in the topic. I had more responses in the topic than you and the other person COMBINED. My posts were also in direct talks with the people and their problems and offering my thoughts of how to help them. Yours mostly consisted of few word responses which didn't pertain to much really.

i've been posting in the topic series since sir chris made the very first one in the wake of the two suicides, and i've definitely made longer posts in the topics in the past as well. maybe i wasn't posting so much in that specific topic but in the whole series i've posted more than you, i'm pretty sure. (perhaps it was just a misunderstanding in that you thought i was referring to that specific topic while i meant to refer to the whole series. i may not have worded it clearly, whatever.)
---

Corrik posted...

It is why I think many start liberal and become conservative later in life. You start full of hope and change and unaware of the realities of life. As they set in and you understand them, you become more conservative in how you view things.

this is the most backhanded compliment to conservatism i've ever seen lmao
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

just because it worked out in this case doesn't mean the tone of your post was appropriate for the topic.

Disagree.

In the scenario a stern, logical, but supportive approach seemed the best to me. The last thing you want to do in regards to someone who is depressed and possibly building up a likely mountain of hope in a likely pitfall is to try to show the unlikelihood, the reason to not put all those eggs in that basket, and to try and look at it closer from another angle. The last thing you want if a person is depressed is them to get deluded with an impossible goal that will crash down and hurt them tremendously and possibly cause them to make a very bad decision emotionally and irrationally when that happens.

If the situation looks obvious from a independent third party and a person who is depressed is making a deluded choice in regards to it, you should try to realistically nip the delusion in the bud before it gets to big and the damage can get too great. To do so, a questioning or cautionary tone sometimes isn't the best.

Like, do you think that is truly the best idea?

Well, if you are deluded, especially be passion, the answer is YES. I am POSITIVE it is the BEST idea. So, in a way you have fed that delusion. You reinforced it indirectly.

Sternly trying to show why you shouldn't be thinking that way with the information at hand seemed to me to be the best choice in the situation. The tone was simply stern offering of advice to help the person.

You read it with bias however.

Neither of us is likely a psychiatrist though so our help is simply another person in a crowd trying to give someone time and trying to help them. He can take it or leave it. Or you could have said, I disagree with Corrik. I actually feel this way. Or branched off from what I have said. You chose to start an argument in a topic meant for depression in which I had to be the bigger person and just walk away from it because it was honestly astronomically badly thought out by you and the other. You could have easily have made the comments you wished to via pms, and I could have said the same here through a pm. Or just offered differing advice.

If you feel you were right, hats off to you. I don't think you make that spectacle if not the "fighting off the lacking of empathy conservative troll" narrative that seems to be prevalently pushed here personally.
---

please guys stop letting this happen
---

Corrik Containment Topic 171
---

You guys know that one way to get it to stop is to bring up new topics of discussion

For example:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/05/02/health/iowa-abortion-ban-trnd/index.html

"This bill will be the vehicle that will ultimately provide change and provide the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade," Sen. Rick Bertrand, a Republican, said during the floor debate. "There's nothing hidden here about the agenda."

Augh
Augh
Augh
---

"we brazenly wish to subvert the will of the people"

Well ok then
---

Saw something about Republicans nominating Trump for a Nobel peace prize.
---

Shaduln posted...

Saw something about Republicans nominating Trump for a Nobel peace prize.

House Republicans. Just means they submitted him to be considered.

Figuring Obama won in a year he did nothing at all, I figure every president is likely nominated every year.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You guys know that one way to get it to stop is to bring up new topics of discussion

For example:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/05/02/health/iowa-abortion-ban-trnd/index.html

"This bill will be the vehicle that will ultimately provide change and provide the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade," Sen. Rick Bertrand, a Republican, said during the floor debate. "There's nothing hidden here about the agenda."

Augh
Augh
Augh

I thought I brought up a good one with a Reuters poll about millennials. Everyone wanted to argue I posted instead of comment on it or dismiss it. *Shrug*
---

That bill is just straight up unconstitutional. I can't imagine it being given cert.
---

I love how Republicans are anti-abortion but also anti-maternity leave
---