Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
It's only necessary to lie to enemies who threaten your liberty. That doesn't apply here.Society is built on the bedrock of collective myths.
Are you the Illuminati to pick and choose which incoherent myth is important?
It is not in the nature of man to deny himself the truth. To embrace myths you know to be myth is an act of manipulation for the sole purpose of deceiving others by example.
Some would argue objective morality is a myth
They would fail, but if they were right then consent still does not matter. Nothing else matters either, nothing except tactical advantage.
Many things are banned because the consequences are disastrous in 90% of cases, so the need to keep these protections in place gives rise to the myth that it'll necessarily go wrong in 100% of cases.
Yes, that attitude is why I have to keep explaining to mindless bureaucrats that a concrete block wall is a better fire barrier than the code required 1/2" drywall or equivalent.
I am not convinced, I see only the intellectual laziness unique to tyrants who don't have to explain themselves because they don't need the consent of their victims. Large majorities are easily tyrants too.
That would only get them off the hook under the assumption that your fabricated principle of sexual morality prevails.In the hypothetical that I gave, I was talking about actual molesters (adults who have forcible sex with unwilling children).
I understood. You were saying that even though in reality it was rape, if child-adult sex was not under a blanket ban then there would be a motivation to extort a false report of consent from the child.
Whereas under current law and theory there would be no point sense the police would say "Doesn't matter what the kid says, it was rape, burn in hell".
Thus instead of motivating the extortion of a false report of consent the motivation is to murder the child so there is no witness. Check the theory: You will find that the vast majority of people willing to abduct a child plan to and most of the time do murder them.
Let me be clear though, I am interested in dissuading crime only to the point just before the of violation rights. The goal isn't to protect the most people at any cost, it's to protect the most people while respecting liberty. Has been since 1776. Moving any other direction but a more extreme version of that is irrational regression.
If it was illegal to have sex with too great an age gap regardless of age, then saying "it was consensual" is not a defense.Yes, that's the point. Child molesters cannot get off Scott-free if having sex with said child would've been illegal even if "consensual". Hence, children enjoy an extra layer of deterrence against molesters touching them.
That layer does not require the lie that children are incapable of consent.
A adult (and a child for that matter) can consent to drugs too, but that does not mean selling them drugs must be legal. At least not under the prevailing theory of government.
No, that's not my position. Adults having sex with minors should be illegal, even if the minor is willing, because this relationship will likely do more bad than good.
Fine, but it has nothing to do with consent then. So your answer to underdog would be like:
[Underdog] If the issue is children’s consent, then why would the age of the adult matter?The issue isn't consent. it's that I think the relationship would do more bad than good on average.
And it doesn't negate that legalized/normalized incest would be catastrophic in other respects.
I would debate that later when it would not derail this thread.
But for the same reason that straight men aren't intimately friendly with each other anymore
I think that's true to a degree, a shame, but that says more about our culture's weakness in diffusing sexual tension than anything else. There are contexts in which zedvictor's description of "meaningless penis/vagina angst" is apt.
Animals can't consent even though they can only reproduce through sex, implying that every non-human pregnancy was a rape child and every mother a rape victim.Animals are not held to the moral standard of humans.
If that was true, then no one would talk about whether an animal consents.
I'm against the male-only draft just like you are, so I fail to see your point.
Just commentary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Dude, I get you're into goats or whatever, but are you really defending this?
Even if the Earth is not flat, not all arguments that the Earth is round are sound and not all debunking of flat-earth arguments is correct.
Reason is a process. To be a rational person means the conclusion you want is never more important than the way you come to conclusions.
I follow the rules of logic and believe whatever the conclusion is after following those rules. That's what debating is supposed to be and that's what I do online under this name. I point out missing arguments and fallacious arguments.
It's necessary for the sake of the public good, even if not true in 100% of cases, to uphold the principle that minors cannot give consent to have sex with adults. Were that not so, there'd be a lot of nasty consequences.
It's only necessary to lie to enemies who threaten your liberty. That doesn't apply here.
If the reason is to avoid nasty consequences then that is the reason you should give. If you're going to lie about the reason why not appeal to the will of god? That's harder to disprove and less likely to become a vulnerability to your goal of avoiding those consequences.
Molesters could pressure their victims into saying "Yes, it was consensual" and get off the hook.
That would only get them off the hook under the assumption that your fabricated principle of sexual morality prevails.
If it was illegal to have sex with too great an age gap regardless of age, then saying "it was consensual" is not a defense.
You have accepted this from the errors in general ethics:
1.) That there is only one checkbox for sexual morality: consent. If you have consent then there can be no immorality
2.) That it is unacceptable for adults to have sex with children, an excuse must be made to reconcile with (1)
3.) Therefore children cannot consent
Of course then entire explosion of absurd stretches explodes from the error, this is the nature of error; it propagates and gets bigger.
Now siblings can't consent even if they are both 20. Parents and children can consent if they're both above 20. "somehow"
Animals can't consent even though they can only reproduce through sex, implying that every non-human pregnancy was a rape child and every mother a rape victim.
Young children could be physically harmed, and sometimes die from, by being acted upon by an aggressive adult man. Kids are impressionable an-
etc... etc... lots of reasons, those 'bad consequences' you mentioned. Some more reasonable than others but that is besides my point. If you have to talk about other reasons you aren't talking about consent anymore.
The world is more complicated than the (1)(2)(3) above, we just have to face it.
Teen boys would have to compete with adult men to have relationships with their female peers, and 90% would not be up to the challenge, producing a spike in frustration, loneliness, and resentment among this age group. This would of course be bad for them, and it'd cause them to act out maliciously against teen girls.
Seems like we have that outcome with a different cause. I think the historical solution was to send the young men out to die so the rich old men could keep their harems. Not that many harems around so I guess the new solution is to fail to reproduce and all turn into fantastically bitter old senors with no one to take care of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Fun to joke around, but in all seriousness if Trump was elected while incarcerated, and they didn't do some bullshit about "we're suspending his sentence until after he serves his term" or something then he could and should order the US military to quell the insurrection which has abducted the commander in chief.In all seriousness, the best thing Trump could do at this point is pick a likable VP before he's sentenced, give that guy his ringing endorsement, and then humbly accept his fate (whether deserved or not) while the RNC nominates said person in Trump's place.
...and Hitler will stop with the Sudetenland?
You don't negotiate with terrorists or tyrants.
The wages of undermining the US constitution and destroying US democracy cannot be anything but deep, aching, defeat.
Letting them veto candidates by lawfare won't stop with Trump and Trump is already too far. You reward them by respecting their veto, they'll do it again and again and when you finally decide it's gone too far it will be too late for the nation to be reborn peacefully.
We're already one hard shock away from people executing the fake prosecutors and judges.
Why don't people learn from history?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
... you didn't answer the question. The age of the adult doesn't change the consent of the child (or lack thereof).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
My guess is that the vice will finish Trump's work.
Fun to joke around, but in all seriousness if Trump was elected while incarcerated, and they didn't do some bullshit about "we're suspending his sentence until after he serves his term" or something then he could and should order the US military to quell the insurrection which has abducted the commander in chief.
Non-cult US judges may be a bunch of cowards, but what they're afraid of is exponential escalation to civil war. They will move Heaven and Earth to prevent that order from being necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Why would you think that?russia wants trump to look good
Their interests have nothing to do with whether Trump looks good, they just have a common enemy: the global deep state
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
and yet you also claimed he could use 100% campaign dollars?Because I’m talking about the payment to SD which is first of all not a legal expense and therefore not subject to this rule in the first place
This isn't a rule so much as an example to inform you of what constitutes a personal expense. Your cult-like denial of the clear meaning of "legal expense" is irrelevant.
and second of all is not a personal expense either since it was made for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the election in his favor.
Let's review
[FEC] In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.
Did these allegations arise from campaign or officeholder activity? No, they predate them. In 2011 SD claimed she had an affair with Trump.
However, if the candidate is required to answer the allegation, as in it has become part of the public discourse on the candidacy, then something changes. Then you can use campaign money to fight the allegations. This obviously includes settlements and settlements often have cash payments and NDA clauses.
The inescapable implication is that it was a personal expense that could be considered partially a campaign expense. True or false?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So if the payment to Stormy Daniels was a legal expense (it’s not) then the campaign can pay half of it provided it meets the proceeding requirements (it didn’t).You claim it didn't meet those requirements, so therefore how much can be covered by campaign money?$0If it didn’t meet the requirements then the entire section is moot. So what was your point?
Contrast:
By reporting it as a campaign contributionAnd a campaign expenditure?Sure...and if it was a campaign expenditure then he could have used donation money correct?If the money was donated to the campaign? Sure.
Why does your interpretation of the FEC rules conclude that he could spend $0 campaign dollars, and yet you also claimed he could use 100% campaign dollars?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, they should be well defined so they can be applied with purely objective reasoning.You’ve spent weeks arguing that laws are objective
That doesn't mean existing laws, past laws, or future laws are well defined.
Perfect law may be impossible but some protocols get us a lot closer and following those protocols is what defines "rule of law". Protocols such as:
"ambiguity must favor the accused" <- because of another one: "presumption of innocence".
"equal application"
"precedent" <- Once you pick an interpretation you have to stick with it
that any thought involved is subjective and therefore unjust
Not "thought" "whim", when you get to treat people differently using irrelevant factors not specified in law that is a whim.
Well in that case the law says these things have to be reported so the why or the “who Trump was beholden to” would be completely irrelevant.
I was mocking your explanation, not the law; but I can criticize and reject laws without an ounce of hypocrisy.
Saying a law is bad is not at all the same thing as using bad law OR twisting good law to justify crimes (abduction, theft, extortion, forced censorship)
No, just trying to get you to start applying logic critical thinking
Drowning man tells the coastguard to tread water. Proof is in the pudding, specifically how you keep losing the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe they could promise him citizen ship if he serves as cannon fodder on the eastern front (Ukraine)?
Well first they would draft the "maggots" to get them out of the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder if in some convoluted court, judge Merchan could be charged with the crime of "concealing information helpful or detrimental to an election" when he gagged Trump.[Double_R] It’s always amusing watching MAGA cultists purposefully strawman the legal arguments applied as a means to make them sound as stupid as possible, to then use their own made up stupid interpretations as an excuse to impose their own stupid arguments.Stupidity on top of stupidity.
The cultist is a bit triggered...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So what is your point?
Oh, my patience will be infinite I promise you. No matter how dumb you act, I will spoon feed it until you have nothing left but denial.
So if the payment to Stormy Daniels was a legal expense (it’s not) then the campaign can pay half of it provided it meets the proceeding requirements (it didn’t).
You claim it didn't meet those requirements, so therefore how much can be covered by campaign money?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I've already said it, we are witnessing the "latinoamericanization", the "bananization", the decline of the US.Banana cult.
That worst part? We don't even grow bananas... we just sell weapons and high maintenance vehicles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder if in some convoluted court, judge Merchan could be charged with the crime of "concealing information helpful or detrimental to an election" when he gagged Trump.
What an excellent point!
Now in a previous era of law and order somebody might say something like "immunity while executing duties of office", but that was then. Now we know there is no such thing. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW hahhahaaaa!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
[FEC] In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.Try that.It allows for 50%, Trump paid it all himself.It requires him to provide “substantive responses to the press” regarding the allegations. That’s the complete opposite of everything this was about.
Ah, so he wasn't required to provide "substantive responses to the press" regarding the allegations and what does that imply in the context of that publication?
Hint: Trump wouldn't be allowed to do something, he would not be allowed to pay 50% of the expense with X funds. What is X?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know that thing was written by a bunch if insurrectionists?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
it's super tenuous and a stretch, stupid, to call hush money a campaign donation
1000%
There is only one rational way to interpret the designation of "definite campaign expenditure" and that is "an expense that could not exist without a campaign".
Anything else leads to absurdity and violates the constitution. The constitution specifies the only limitations on running for office, congress cannot pass a law which states those running for office must livestream themselves whenever they are naked. This would obviously violate the rights of all the non-nudists to run for office.
For the same reason they cannot require the disclosure of anything that any other citizen would not have to disclose and that includes spending. The rights of a candidate cannot be less than the rights of the citizen and that includes the right to privacy.
There are things that campaign donations can be spent on that personal money can also be spent on. There are things campaign money cannot be spent on (things that have nothing to do with the campaign). There are things that only campaign money can spent on, the above mentioned "definite campaign expenditure", and that does not violate the constitution because you could not spend money on a campaign that does not exist as an ordinary citizen.
So to recap:
A: Never campaign expenditure, like mortgage, rent and utility payments
B: Optional campaign expenditure, like travel
C: Always campaign expenditure, like giant billboards that say "X for senate"
NDAs are firmly in B. They happen without political campaigns all the time.
What determines when an optional campaign expenditure is a campaign expenditure? Simple: Whether you used campaign donations. If you didn't it's not a campaign expenditure.
If you find this easier to understand than their convoluted excuse for a criminal case that's because it's coherent and their case is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Let me know if anything stands out.Nope.
How unsurprising.
[FEC] In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.
Try that.
I decided to stop wasting my time.
No you haven't, you're still trying to gaslight people who will never fall for it.
There was no falsification and NDAs aren't campaign spendingPaying $130k to a porn star to stay quiet is not a legal expense, it’s a campaign contribution.
As if there is a dichotomy?
I bought some milk, it was neither payment to a porn star nor a campaign contribution; but I'm sure if I was a threat to the deep state and I labeled it as a "food expense" you ilk would be confidently assuring everyone that "milk is a drink, not food; it's always been this way, no one is above the law"
6th Amendment exists.Yes it does. So are you going to make an argument as to how it’s relevant or just keep implying it?
Well you god damn cultist, in order to defend yourself from the accusation of a crime or the accusation of the intent to commit a crime; that crime has to be specified.
Only one theory of the elements of the crime are permitted in law and order, but I know that's not how you operate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The actual meaning of the text for the 6th amendment and every other amendment and every law does not exist to Double_R when they are inconvenient to the destruction of the orange Hitler.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
In this case Trump would be beholden to Trump.if you’re running for public office the people have a right to know what money is coming in and out of your campaign so they can see and judge for themselves who you might be beholden to.
What horrific revelation that would be!
You are really triggered by that aren’t you?
I'm definitely triggered by people like you trying to put me and the sane population of the world through struggle sessions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Sure...and if it was a campaign expenditure then he could have used donation money correct?If the money was donated to the campaign? Sure.
Let me know if anything stands out.
In fact, it doesn’t even require that the defendant did in fact rob their victim, only that the murder occurred during the course of the robbery. In other words, the prosecution only needs to show their intent to rob, not the actual commission of the underlying crime.This is the exact same thing.
Except for the fact that there was no murder and no robbery.
There was no falsification and NDAs aren't campaign spending unless you want it to be campaign spending so you can spend donated dollars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It takes less time when you print a ballot for every driver's license or census record and then send in fraudulent ballots or harvest the ballots of people who have no idea what's going on.The extra votes take a lot of time to manifest— usually via US born children of immigrants. What happens more quickly is greater representation in congress according to population size.
Not saying they can pull that off in every case, but the bigger the flock the easier it is to hide in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
It's a useless concept with humans. One year olds can make their wishes clear and many can do it linguistically.
There is no such thing as an age of consent. There is an age arbitrarily chosen by society below which consent is insufficient.
Insufficient for what? That's complicated. Asking this question doesn't make it any less so.
As Savant said "power imbalance" is much closer to what people actually care about but they have no way to formalize those ethics so they stick with a bunch of legal fiction.
I don't care about power imbalance, I care about rational ethics for which power imbalance is at best a nearly-useless proxy. For example parents are far more powerful than children but humans are genetically programmed to try and maximize the children's chances of having a successful life and few stray from this programming.
Rules with exceptions aren't rules and generalizations with tons of exceptions aren't useful.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
roflIn this case it's against the law to try to win an election through dishonest means
Whether or not you think that's a good law or not, it's the law in the state of NY
I don't think such a law exists. You should do more surface level research.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh and here is a micro example of the context shifting (redherring, strawman) that Double_R is at all times engaged in:
[Double_R] Not reporting it as the campaign contribution it actually was… that’s where it became illegal.[ADOL] Indictment unnecessary, guilty until proven... actually just guilty no proof will be accepted.[Double_R] Apparently you missed the trial where they provided documents, played recordings and interviewed witnesses. You are free to use google you’d like to catch up.[ADOL] No charge of violating election law was brought against Donald Trump.[Double_R] Because that wasn’t necessary.
So it became illegal when it was not reported, that means without that element it was not illegal.
Double_R is trying to gaslight people into believing that even if an element is necessary for illegality it does not need to be charged.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh and here is a micro example of the context shifting (redherring, strawman) that Double_R is at all times engaged in:
[Double_R] Not reporting it as the campaign contribution it actually was… that’s where it became illegal.[ADOL] Indictment unnecessary, guilty until proven... actually just guilty no proof will be accepted.[Double_R] Apparently you missed the trial where they provided documents, played recordings and interviewed witnesses. You are free to use google you’d like to catch up.[ADOL] No charge of violating election law was brought against Donald Trump.[Double_R] Because that wasn’t necessary.
So it became illegal when it was not reported, that means without that element it was not illegal.
Double_R is trying to gaslight people into believing that even if an element is necessary for illegality it does not need to be charged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
...and if it was a campaign expenditure then he could have used donation money correct?By reporting it as a campaign contributionAnd a campaign expenditure?Sure
Your baseless speculation of their motives is irrelevant.
Suddenly intent and context don't matter
l o l
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The point of the law is that the reason you do something matters. If I am on house arrest and I leave my house, that’s bad. But if the reason I left my house was to mug someone, that is far worse than if I left my house because I saw someone being mugged and decided to come to their rescue.
Intent is different from an act, but if the act is not criminal then the intent to do that act is not criminal.
It's not just that Trump hasn't been charged with violating election laws. It's that he didn't violate election laws and that's the best explanation for why he wasn't charged.
If you leave your house to shake someone's hand, and they call that the intent to commit assault; that is insane cult-speak. The fact that you were not charged with assault is a fact that has to be explained.
There is no way out of this. If intent means "he thinks he's doing something wrong" then it would need to be proven that YOU thought shaking someone's hand was illegal assault, and that Trump thought he was legally barred from personal NDA agreements (which is an absurdity that no one believed and now only cultist believe and only in regards to Trump and other enemies of the cult).
If intent has nothing to do with whether he thought it was illegal but only the act he intended, then whether what he intended was illegal must be adjudicated.
It is a federal statue, you need a federal judge to decide, and IF you have the supreme court decides that personal NDAs are illegal for political candidates and office holders THEN you need to apply the law equally and retroactively go after everyone whose ever paid not only NDAs but anything that could conceivably effect an election.
Why? When a legal ruling is made on interpretation ex-post facto does not apply. The ruling is that it is illegal now, it was illegal when the appellate did it, and it was illegal since the law was passed.
Created:
Posted in:
Logic determines the best argument. Not repetition, blocking, or any other interpersonal minutia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The argument has never been that NDA’s are illegal.Then how could Trump pay for an NDA?By reporting it as a campaign contribution
And a campaign expenditure?
Indictment unnecessary, guilty until proven... actually just guilty no proof will be accepted.Apparently you missed the trial where they provided documents, played recordings and interviewed witnesses. You are free to use google you’d like to catch up.
You're free to stop lying at anytime.
No charge of violating election law was brought against Donald Trump.
He pleaded guilty to itHe was never charged with it, it is impossible to plead guilty to crimes you were never charged with.Funny, the southern district of NY seems to think otherwise.
Alright I was wrong, but it's clear they tacked that on to get Trump. Guilty pleas are not binding legal precedent. Cohen was not punished for this, they combined the other charges into a plea deal to confuse the issue.
But why listen to them? The only person who understands how the law works is ADOL on debateart.com.
Better than cultists like you, but I would also refer you to Alan Dershowitz, Robert Barnes, and thousands of others. Also history before 2023 AD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
it is an objective fact that the 14th amendment makes executive branch nullification completely illegalCould you lay out that argument, please? I don’t believe it is known as “nullification” but rather “prosecutorial discretion.”
"No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - 14th amendment
"prosecutorial discretion" is a tradition, not a law. If the prosecutor thinks no crime was committed or there is insufficient evidence but others do not, that might be called "discretion", but if a prosecutor (or the entire executive branch) thinks the laws shouldn't be enforced and therefore does not enforce them for any reason whether it be targeting an minority (such as an individual) or a blanket refusal; then that is denial of equal protection of the laws.
The case is strong on the plain language, and stronger when you look into the history, context, and debates which surround the 14th ammendment's drafting.
Basically the problem they were seeing was that whenever the racist ex-slavers (soon to be organized as the KKK) got control of a sheriff's office or judicial appointment they quickly cemented their power by having paramilitaries (mobs of 'young scholars') kill or terrorize any attempt to retake the power for republicans.
In other words people were being murdered, denied the ballot, etc... and the police, prosecutors, and judges said "eh, who cares".
That was their "discretion". The 14th amendment was designed to make that unconstitutional. There were people who were not being protected by the laws on the books against murder etc...
It was twisted later into the completely false interpretation that the amendment had to do with laws themselves. i.e. you had to check if your law equally impacted every arbitrary category of people you could imagine.
Again, this is false from the plain language and the context. They could have written "No state shall make laws which abridge the privileges of the citizens unequally with respect to race".
The constitution and the bill of the rights has clear examples of that form of language, the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Instead they referred to "the laws" in the 14th amendment. What are "the laws" doing? Protecting people. This was still a time when people at least pretended that the purpose of law was to protect the rights of man. When you choose not to enforce a law, you're not protecting rights, and everyone is entitled to protection under the law.
That is what the 14th amendment means. "prosecutorial discretion" is legally meaningless before the supreme law of the land.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
For me, its a bit of a hard to play game. Battles take such a long time, even when I speed up the game. Its strange. I spend like 20 minutes staring at screen watching animated soldiers shooting at each other.Construction also takes a really long time. I dont know, it feels like a game of waiting.
This makes me suspect you're lying about something as simple as playing a game.
There is always more to do in HOI4 than can ever be done, especially with the expansions. If by some miracle you find yourself with nothing to micromanage, no focus to select, no air nor naval deployments to optimize, you can just change the speed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
In my opinion it is an objective fact that the 14th amendment makes executive branch nullification completely illegal (unconstitutional) and it was implied to be so already by the mere fact that legislatures had the right to pass laws.
The veto is the only legal way for an executive branch to object to laws. Anything else is a violation of oath and impeachable at the very least.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Thanks for the input cultist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why be quiet?
Defrauding the voter sounds about right?
Kind of nice for the president to toss out 350,000 court cases. What a man of law and order!
Nothing says "law and order" like making up crimes for your political opponent and then refusing to enforce laws congress passed decades ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then how could Trump pay for an NDA?Like I said, NDAs are illegal; but only for Trump.The argument has never been that NDA’s are illegal.
Buying a pack of cigarettes is legal, until you buy it for a 12 year old.
So buying an NDA is legal, until you buy it for Trump.
Not reporting it as the campaign contribution it actually was
Indictment unnecessary, guilty until proven... actually just guilty no proof will be accepted.
This isn’t complicated
Biden raped his daughter just by showering with her naked <- not complicated just false
Biden raped his daughter by eating ice cream <- not complicated but obviously irrevocably only an insane lying cultist would claim false [you are here]
He pleaded guilty to it
He was never charged with it, it is impossible to plead guilty to crimes you were never charged with.
Created:
[Double_R] The law does not require the jury to agree, that is an entirely different thing.
'Jury unanimity has never been a requirement. It's always been that way. That's just how the law works.'
rofl
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
However, campaign funds may not be used when the action is primarily personal in nature, such as a matrimonial action, or could result in a direct personal benefit for the Member.Looks like "They" would have charged Trump either way. If he used campaign funds to benefit his marriage, that would be a violation. The fix was always in.
Of course they would have. They would have just claimed paying a lawyer isn't a campaign expenditure and that's fraud and violating FEC rules against personnel expenses.
Like I said, NDAs are illegal; but only for Trump. Even Cohen who they claim did it is immune.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So it would have had to been written down "campaign contribution" even "NDA" would have been fraudulent in your opinionHe wasn’t prosecuted because he used the wrong words on a piece of paper.
Obviously, but that is what the gaslighters are saying. Now you're gaslighting the gaslight.
Where's the proof that campaign funds were used?Campaign funds weren’t used despite this payment being made for the benefit of the campaign. That’s the whole point.
Apparently you're only allowed to use other people's money to kill stories and compensate NDAs. Who knew? Actually no one because it's false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Who could have guessed campaign finance law made compensated NDAs illegal?It didn’t. What’s illegal is making the contribution but reporting it as “legal expenses” so that no one would know it was a campaign contribution.
So it would have had to been written down "campaign contribution" even "NDA" would have been fraudulent in your opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Nationalism is actually more poorly defined than socialism.What is the true definition of "fascism"?Is it accurate to say it is a blend of socialism and nationalism?What do you think?
What Italian fascists, Japanese imperialists, and German national socialists defined as "the nation" was all slightly different and they did not care about being self-consistent.
It's much better defined in terms of political economy. Fascism is the corporate state, or the corporation as the primary unit or organization of productive activity which is carefully oversaw by the government and the people (who are as one) to make sure that the goals are never greedy but always aimed towards the spiritual and material destiny of the collective (the nation-government-race-people uniconcept). They often made a little room for a small wing of intellectual 'heroes' who would use the power of science, especially "scientific socialism" to help organize the nation-government-race-people uniconcept.
Note that when they say "corporation" they mean something closer to "labor union" than Apple. Always 'owned' by the workers but existing for the betterment of the uniconcept, not for anyone's profit not even the workers.
3RU7AL arguments to the effect of "You can tell what ideologies are different based on who tried to get rid of who" is fundamentally flawed. It would conclude that protestants and catholics have nothing in common because of the 30 years war.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
We will need to find some expert gas lighters. Not everyone can do what these people do when they act like you're an idiot for remembering how "the law worked" 5 minutes ago.
Of course it helps that they use their own crimes as inspiration for their accusations.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is always tomorrow. The rules no longer exist. Statutes of limitation are bumps in the road.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you know that Hilary used campaign money to fund the fabrication of the steel dossier and mislabeled the spending?
Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it? Well except for an NDA being legal and fabricating defamatory material being a major civil liability. Oh and the using donation money instead of your own.
OOOHHHHH YEA and the part where those "no one is above the law" parrots don't give a shit.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
All of those things could easily cause a net detriment to fitness far greater than ten minutes a day and a few mL of protein.The Panda is a great example. Evolution changes decided to radically lower their sex drive to allow survivors to exist on the scant calories of bamboo instead of starving. If humans lived in a bamboo world, they would be just as sexually lethargic over 1000 generations.
That's a relevant example.
I usually dominate zoology trivia but I did not know Pandas had low sex drive. Is that why they're having trouble breeding them in captivity?
It may very well be that homosexuality was a fit trait passed down for thousands of years to naturally help control population in a way that didn't include starvation and disease.
That's a theory that a lot of people have but my point is more fundamental.
You came up with some secondary benefit in some circumstances.
I'm saying homosexuality may well be a side effect itself of the entire psycho sexual system. In other words our species could rely heavily on pheromones and seasonal drives as many animals do but what seems to work much better is all this romantic shit where we write poetry about predestined love with absolute loyalty.
Think of all the things heterosexual people can find attractive in others? Is it enough that they have the right genitals? That they are fit and free of major diseases? Do we just beat each other over the head to determine who has the right to mate?
Of course not! The sexual selection in humans is hyper-detailed and almost entirely based on abstract mental constructs.
"I want the proverbs wife"
"I want a man who does X, Y, and Z in such in such situation but makes me feel like A and B but not C"
"His family has huuuuge tracttts of laaand!" <- little bit of a joke, but I am absolutely certain people have had this fetish and probably more in older cultures
I'll invoke @zedvictor4 here. He calls it "overthink", appropriate labeling aside the capacity to be complex and novel goes hand in hand with the range of novel and bizarre errors that are possible.
Humans can be attracted to almost anything about potentially reproductive partners, and it is plausible that the cost of this advantageous flexibility is the disadvantage that if one little thing goes wrong in development then humans can be attracted to almost anything full stop.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hard to count Biden's but Trump's is zero if I recall. Plenty of opportunity though, federal courts blocked many of his attempts to secure the border.
Created:
[FLRW] I'm guessing researchers a 1000 years from now reviewing these posts will see that me and Best.Korea were the smartest people here.
@1000 year descendants, you see what we had to deal with? Don't take it for granted. You're welcome.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which was another example of oath-breaking corruption from the psuedojudge. He claimed it was a matter of law so that meant it wasn't subject to expert witness, it was his decision whether NDAs were illegal.
Yet if he had decided that without doubt NDAs were illegal, then Cohen should be charged with a campaign finance violation. He was not. No one was.
So apparently the new theory is that state judges can simply assume people are guilty of federal crimes. No facts need be presented nor can evidence against that presumption be introduced. Most importantly federal judges may not review this decision of federal law.
This is their "rule of law". Italian fascists of the 30s would not be so brazen.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
You're going to wish we were laughing.He was found guilty of 34 felony counts for defrauding the American voters, that's not a joke.
Created: