Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
^^above is a link to full descriptions of the races with 5e and the bonuses recieved
Created:
Posted in:
Under 5e, ok cool, I'll try to look up what the racial bonuses are myself to spare you the time in copying it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Noice, look forward to this getting underway 👍
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
How does donating to political campaigns necessarily equal "buying out" candidates, ergo, bribery?
Created:
Posted in:
Wylted is the only one who is unresponsive. Need him to be replaced to start the game 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Listen, if I see a person wearing a white robe with a pointed hood and mask, I'm thinking KKK, not Spanish Easter Penitents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can see ur point 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd know to stfu regarding the FBI investigation for one 😂
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Lol i know there are plenty of reasons why not, personally speaking they don't really matter to me 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Trump... c'mon man 😂😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
Attributions of IQ to racial differences is only applicable insomuch that these differences aren't fully explainable by the aforementioned factors because those differences for the most part persist with minor differentiations from socio-economic status to socio-economic status.
People also tend to view aggregates and generals as being a sweeping admonition of the individuals therein. But these generals do not preclude the individual from exceeding those averages.
Overlaps in Intelligence and the clustering found is far different than say, clustering for physical strength between men and women. For example, the highest performing members of a low performing demographic will fall in the same range as the highest performing in any demographic regarding intelligence.
Unlike say peak strength differentials for men and women. Where its for example, phenomenal for a woman to be able to squat 200 pounds. Thats nearing typical peak strength. That 200 though, is the extreme low end of the clustering for men, as in, that's weak AF for a guy who should generally given a month or two of strength training, be able to squat 500-600+ easy.
The former(IQ) is a rather meaningless difference, the latter(strength of male v female) is very meaningful. As should be obvious why after explanation 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
That IQ improves the more you learn, as has been established for a looong time, is clear indication the test is not wholly a measure of innate intelligence, but one that measure current intelligence. For example, a baby would fail because they can't even take it. They obviously will be able to and thus are more intelligent than they were previously 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
The problem, I think, is that IQ is a deeply flawed measure of intelligence constructed in a way that privileges people with other social and economic privilege. See, for instance, this:
The problem is you think IQ is a measure of innate intelligence and not current intelligence. IQ tests are fmpov one of the least biased, most accurate tests created.
These "flaws" are flaws in our view of intelligence, not the test itself.
Created:
But, to answer the question, yeah, I don't see why not? 🤔
Created:
Basically, with the average person dying by 30, that means you need to have kids at 13-15 if ur gonna raise them to where they can have kids to pass on the torch.
A 13-15 cant be expected to make responsible and practical decisions in romance, ergo, arranged marriages. Cause if chances are ur dead by 30, that means by the time ur even 18, you already have less time than it takes to raise a kid. Which is the primary reason why, back in the olden days, if you hit 20-25 without kids or marriage, you were seen as a spinster doomed to die alone. Because average lifespan dictated that at that age, you were now too old for it to be seen as probable you lived to at least when that kid was out on their own 🤔
Created:
Women are no longer property.
Honestly, ur being rather obtuse when it comes to arranged marriage. With an enlightened morality you look at it and go, "that's treating someone like property" when for most cases it wasnt. It was the best way to ensure a daughter had security and stability of well-being in adulthood. The world used to be a wholly brutal place, and it's was largely not safe for women to be alone, full stop.
Not to mention, lifespans were so short that if you didn't marry and have kids young, you would be dead long before they could care for themselves in all likelihood.
Your perspective to be frank, is wrapped up in your own priviledged position of being a woman in an enlightened nation in modern times. You would have us operate in the past, as we do now, when that type of practice would have been absolutely disastrous for women as a whole.
Created:
-->
@XLAV
"It was weird. People always told me the start was supposed to be the best part of a relationship, lol."
Because it usually is 😂. The "honeymoon phase", as its called is to describe how people often overlook many key things in the emotional rush of new romance. I would say because you two were so different that honeymoon was skipped and you were forced right into negotiation of differences and how those differences can be kept under control so as to not lead to an unclosable rift 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
If Trump wanted to he could give him a blanket pardon for the crimes he's committed, and any and all crimes committed in direct or indirect relation. I doubt Manafort gets a pardon tho, because unlike say Dinesh D'Souza, Manaforts charges almost always come with a prison sentence if convicted. 🤔.
Cohen is actually the one that potentially could be pardoned, but being that the weasel flipped to try to save his own skin, the chances of that happening are effectively zero 😂.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The determining factor is not what specific elements of the act they break, but their knowingness and willingnessThere is no stipulation, for example, that says section X is a civil penalty whereas section Y is a criminal penalty.
I agree, ive brought up intent myself. And i agree, on statute there is no exceptions. The exceptions come into play when examining how past cases have been prosecuted. This plays into the principle of stare decisis. That if X crime has overwhelmingly except in rare cases, been prosecuted(or not) in a certain manner, subsequent cases adhere to that precedent set. As said, failure to disclose campaign expenditures/donations is a criminal offense, but one that is rarely treated seriously and rarely prosecuted as a crime unless there is an inherent criminal nature(ex. bribery) to the expenditures or donations not being disclosed
NDA's and hush money for extramarital affairs are not illegal 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
But being that Cohen himself has pled to the excessive contribution, this is irrelevant. As i said, this automatically makes it a matter of a potential lack of disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures regarding the Trump campaign.
Cohen can be found to have excessively donated, while at the same time, Trump can be found to have been making a personal expenditure. This isnt contradictory even though facially it seems so. Because the specific charges pled guilty to be Cohen did not actually involve it being at the behest of anyone in specific, depsite Cohen claiming this beforehand 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
"Do you have a citation for this? I don't see where in the act it exempts the candidate themselves from these requirements."
they're not exempt strictly speaking. However, they are exempt in that a candidate can loan their own money to their campaign with zero limits, to be repaid at the end of the campaign. However, that candidate can simply forgive the entirety of that debt with zero repercussions.
Individuals are exempt not necessarily because the statute exempts them specifically, but that the statute lays out a clear path for individuals to use their own personal wealth to fund their campaign.
This is then where past decisions come into play.
You can't name one person that has been charged with excessive contribution in the use of their own money for their own campaign. This in part because of the aforementioned, but also because the point of campaign finance laws are to act as a preventative measure to public officials being beholden to rich donors, in essence, bribery.
Being that its facially absurd that a person is potentially bribing themselves, the purpose of the statutes, the act they are trying to monitor and prevent, is not present.
So though candidates are not specifically exempted, they are exempted via provisions laid out for how they can use their own finances in their own campaign through self-loans.
The FEC lays out the skinny in the link below
Created:
Posted in:
To establish why most expenditures mid campaign are not classified as campaign expenditures, consider that a qualifier of "political significance" is not a valid criteria for a "campaign expenditure."
For example, during the campaign Trumps habit of eating McDonalds and having his steak prepared well done was a story for a short time during the campaign. It held political significance, even if to a limited extent. Are we to consider all food expenses campaign expenditures now? And a lack of disclosure regarding ones expenditures when eating to be a violation of campaign laws? I would think not as it's facially ridiculous.
So, "it had political significance" isnt held as criteria for what is and is not a campaign expenditure.
Created:
Posted in:
not being charged with a crime =\= a criminal offense has been committed. That it was treated as a civil matter just reinforces my point, that lack of disclosure in campaign finance is not treated as a criminal matter except in rare circumstance.
Which again, given the nature of the charge pled to by Cohen, places this squarely as a potential violation of disclosure laws by Trump, and not really much anything else. Cohen pled guilty to a crime, I'm not saying Cohen didnt commit one with excessive contribution. What I'm saying is the charge pled to in the deal itself gives clear indication the situation as a whole is going to run right into the result that Trump either isnt charged criminally, and its handled as a civil matter, or the Trump campaign is found to not have violated disclosure laws by merit of the expense being personal and not a campaign expenditure 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Again, Cohen =\= Trump. Of course Cohen violated different statute, his violation from excessive donation. Obama campaign is lack of disclosure.
But again, when it comes to Trump, any potential violation of his would fall under disclosure laws, if even deemed to be a campaign expenditure and not personal.
So yes, Cohens crime is different, but as established, Cohen =\= Trump. Trump, the individual who was the candidate of the campaign, can give as much as he wants to his own campaign, with zero limitations. Its not possible in other words, to charge Trump with excessive contribution, any violation is necessarily one of lack of disclosure. The same type of crime committed by the Obama campaign. One that resulted in zero jail time for any individual within the campaign, and but a fine of 370k, which as is the usual case, was a fine that hasnt been wholly enforced 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The average special counsel investigation is over 3 years long. This one is still in its childhood.
Considering this investigations purview was to determine how our election were meddled with, what was done, and who did it, that this investigation has strayed so far from that purview is cause for questioning whether the investigation should continue.
Not to mention that the investigation regarding Trump was predicated on a farce of a dossier, and plenty of shady actions from prosecutors at the time. I doubt the investigation ends, but i also don't doubt a special investigation of the investigation is going to happen too.
Which do you think will uncover the most dirt? My guess would be one the investigation of the incestigation considering Bruce Ohr was mighty afraid something that shouldn't be found, would be found, if the investigation was itself investigated. The more that comes out regarding the inner workings of said investigation, the more it looks like a hack job that is filled with issues 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
And this beyond, that usually in these cases if it can be shown that said contribution or expenditure lacked criminal intent(like bribery of a public official) then usually those individuals are allowed to properly reimburse, or be reimbursed their excessive contribution and *voila* no crime committed anymore 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
That Cohen was even charged is and only can be because he was never reimbursed. But if a pattern of hush agreements followed by reimbursement can be established(and like previous lets be honest, that would prolly be easy), it will most likely, for Trump, be considered a personal expenditure, and that lack of reimbursement be viewed as unintentional.
Created:
Posted in:
And to ignore that past determinations like this don't play a factor, is absurd. Of course they do. The only way Cohen even could be charged with the crime of excessive contribution is if he was never reimbursed. That hes being charged is clear indication he wasn't. Which leads to the question:
Was it at Trumps behest, or his own?
If yes? Crime, but not a serious one.
If no? No crime
It's that simple
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Ok, let me lay this out for you:
Cohen committed a crime of excessive donation to a campaign. But Cohen =\= Trump, and Cohen committing a crime =\= Trump committing one even if Cohen acted on his behest.
At worst regarding Trump his offense is violating disclosure laws. The same laws the Obama campaign violated. Now, as you pointed out, its generally treated as an offense that merits only a fine. Secondly, failure to fully disclose campaign contributions and expenditures, is a crime.
Now, if there were disclosure violations in a campaign, its reasonably to assume there were individuals who committed those offenses within that campaign. Those individuals were never charged, again, it was treated as only worthy of a fine upon the entire campaign.
Basically, you pushing that failure to disclose campaign contributions and expenditures as magically not being a crime, is utterly false. It is a crime, its not considered a serious offense. Same as excessive contributions, they arent treated as a serious offense with jail time except in rare circumstances.
That you push lack of disclosure as a civil offense and not a criminal one that falls under jurisdiction of the FEC is farcical 🤔. It is a criminal offense, its just rarely punished with any more than a fine, and those fines are rarely collected in full.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Being voted out of office for lack of disclosure of an expenditure? Ignoring that the expenditure itself isnt a crime, and ignoring that such an expenditure could easily be argued as a personal expenditure... Obama campaign violated disclosure laws too, to the tune of tens of millions, was not voted out. But a couple hundred thousand? Yeah sure, that's way worse 🤔.
On Manafort, not sure if Trump will pardon, or not. Methinks he probably won't. One of the pardons he gave was Dinesh D'Souza, sure, but D'Souza was sent to prison for 20k in excessive contributions unbeknownst to his friend who was running for state or local office, can remember which. When excessive contributions has not been sentenced with jail time unless that excessive contribution was made in exchange for a benefit of some kind the candidate can impart once in office. A pardon/commuting of crime was more than merited. Its not with Manafort 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
For anyone interested in reading the full case plea its located here
Its of particular importance fmpov that the 8th set of charges, the only regarding campaign finance violations, was plead as excessive contribution. Its also important that it being at the specific behest of anyone was excluded from the charge and detailing of the actions that merit the charge.
His statement in court that it was specifically at the behest of Trump, was already made beforehand.
It's also of importance that this easily could be viewed as a personal expenditure, as was pointed out by a former FEC chairman[1]. Especially if a track record previous to the campaign in paying hush money to keep stories of extramarital affair from surfacing can be established, as, let's be honest, it probably would easily be 😂😂.
Let alone that such expenditures most often fall under the realm of a personal expense, even if taken through a middleman. Basically, not every, or even most, expenditures when campaigning for office counts as a campaign expenditure, even ones that may have an effect on public opinion or be viewed disfavorably. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Like out of some courtroom drama
This though, I'm still laughing cause this is too accurate 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
*hush money in a civil affair* hush money in terms of criminal behavior constitutes as obstruction to my knowledge 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
This not to mentioned that the act itself of using ones own campaign funds to arrange hush payments is actually also not in itself illegal, the lack of disclosure is. Lack of disclosure is far from an impeachable offense, and hardly gets held as a serious offense let alone a "high crime" 🤔.
So even if say this goes nowhere, impeachment let alone removal from office is far from probable as a result
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I simply don't believe that any case moving forward is going to rely only on Cohen's testimony.
Its not a matter of sole reliance, its a matter of primary and main reliance. Gates testimony was itself not worth much. It became worth something because plenty of evidence was present to corroborate his testimony.
But given the circumstances of this alleged deal, we have a private deal made under wraps to pay hush money for an extramarital affair. Bank records only point to Cohen, none exist showing he was reimbursed by Trump. If that was the case, Trump would've been charged already, as prosecutors would have direct evidence independent of Cohen. The questionable tapes that skirt the line of attorney-client priviledge violations have been poured over. The most damning one leaked out that has Cohen and Trump discussing potentially make a hush payment, but never coming to agree to it.
As stated, its not exclusively Cohen, the situation however is as such that Cohens testimony will play a leading role regardless, and that is not going to fly very well in terms of burdens of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
When it comes to Manafort, Gates testimony played very little factor. There was plenty of independent evidence to show it as truthful. But again. We arent talking about an arrangement which involved alot of people. The arrangement was allegedly between Cohen and Trump, in private. Cohens testimony is all prosecution could reasonably have, except for bank records that only incriminate Cohen. Oh and a tape in which no decision on the matter is ultimately made, that has audio of Cohen discussing potentially making such a payment.
To say. "prosecutors would withhold certain evidence" is true, but given the situation its hard to see exactly what evidence beyond Cohens testimony, could be provided to conclusively corroborate his story so, like Gates, that testimony has plenty backing it up.
Created:
Posted in:
But let's say this does go to trial. Congrats, your star witness and only person directly linking Trump to a knowing violation is someone who was just torn apart as wholly uncredible, lacking in integrity, and has a track record of lying, acting opportunistically for his own benefit in a crime, etc.
You tell me whether or not that star witnesses testimony is actually going to mean much of anything in court? Especially since this is a flop on something that was repeatedly stated was not the case, until of course, the weasel was facing spending decades in jail 🤔.
I wouldnt actually mind seeing that for how comedic it would be. Prosecutors who just got done extensively and thoroughly whipping Cohens character, turn right around and say that the witness is reliable 😂. I'd place the odds pretty high the presiding judge and jury get a wholesomely good laugh out of that attempt 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This investigation can hardly be labeled as "by the book", if it were by the book the investigation never would have started to begin with, being that the Steele dossier was absolute garbage and has come out as such over time 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
In his plea hearing, Cohen basically said he did it all at the direction of a presidential candidate for the purposes of influencing the election
Then as said, its doubtful his testimony ends up being viewed as legitimate. Prosecution spent most of its time ripping apart Cohens credobility and integrity and throughly did so. For that same person to turn around and be used as a star witness, would be at best, ripped apart by defense, at worst, laughably absurd because his record of behavior alone more than establishes reasonable doubt to conclude he is not being truthful in testimony and rather opportunistic in nature as a means to avoid full extent of prosecution for all crimes.
And again, its humurous tha you think 130k as a campaign finance violation merits jail time or removal from office. Whether or not Obama himself was involved is irrelevant, and not a damn person out of that finding was prosecuted with jail time, direct involvement or indirect not playing a factor at all.
Its one thing to say the guy conspired with foreign government agents, thats easily viewable as treason. Its another to say a 130k campaign finance violation is somehow equivalent to the aforementioned at all in severity and would at all reasonably result in jail time or grounds for removal from office.
Obama campaign committed finance violations for the lack of disclosure. This was a knowing action by multiple officials at least, Obama not withstanding, not a damn person was brought forth on criminal charges, let alone convicted.
Trump in this if held as guilty of a crime, is guilty of not disclosing this expenditure. Direct involvement not withstanding, it was over the same offense of lack of disclosure, but disclosure regarding slightly different matters. In neither case was what was being undisclosed, in itself a criminal act outside of violating disclosure laws. It not illegal to receive donations from big business, its not illegal to pay hush money for an extramarital affair. What is illegal is the non disclosure, but that non disclosure has rarely, if ever, been met with jail time/ as an uber serious criminal offense.
What this investigation has been for awhile now is desperately trying to find something, anything really, that could be construed as a crime, even if that crime itself has nothing to do with the investigations granted purview. Conspiracy with Russia was why the investigation was granted, because that area is actually a severe crime, and so far not a shred of evidence linking Trump to criminal conspiracy with foreign government agents.
Created:
Posted in:
From what I've read Manaforts charges had jack-all to do with Trump. And Cohens plea involved admitting to making a payment we knew happened already. One that he denied Trump had any knowledge of extensively.
Whether or not you wanna believe the guy doesn' matter. What matters is what will come up in court, and an attorney who taped his own client without that clients knowledge, was involved in extramarital affairs, independently guilty of a variety of other crimes hinting towards a dishonest and opportunistic character, and the general course of his character being assassinated throughout proceedings, illustrates this as it probably is. A guy who knew the hammer was coming, and tried to weasel out of it by singing when his word and character was already highlighted as at best highly questionable, at worst, worthless.
Btw, to point out, the Obama campaign in 08 was guilty of felony campaign finance regulations too. To the tune of millions, and unreported donors with undisclosed amounts. He got a 370,000 fine.
130,000 to a playmate as hush money for an affair is small beans, and I would be surprised to see the FEC take up the mantle on this considering this has been known about and they declined to pick up the torch on it previous, as would be their authority to investigate and prosecute in these regards, no?
Anyways, in essence, fmpov its a mountain being made out of a molehill. Mostly by people desperate to jump on any sparkle of light that hints that maybe this time drumpf is finished. Gotta hit (X) on that one🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Ive been playing Forza 2 lately, its a pretty good racing game. Anyone else got it?
Been primarily using a Camaro SS myself, mostly stock engine components except did a drivetrain(AWD) swap and aspiration conversion to a twin turbo. Been tooling around with different gear ratios, but cant quite seem to get the upper differentials right, I end up losing quite a bit of torque in between 4th, 5th, and top gear. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd is on point though.
Any suggestions? Maybe use a supercharger conversion instead of a turbo to maintain more even ratios of torque/horsepower? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
Imho its prep for their eventual plan to take over Taiwan militarily 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
A good point, the Zodiac Killer is probably a better comparison. But the Zodiac Killer is himself quite iconic because it happened at a time when television and the rapid news cycle were starting to get established fmpov.
It was highly sensationalized, but also presented widespread coverage and an example in action of how widespread media coverage can affect the behaviors of a killer, and even feed into it 🤔
Created:
This is somewhat of a wholesome thread.
she finds herself in the realm of reality.
What makes you think the realm being entered is any more reality than the one being left? For example,
She's ready to consider sexual relationships in the honest light of exchanging resources, rather than the nebulous and deceitful "love
It may be empirical to state that resources(wealth) and financial stability play huge roles in relationships. But that is not the only necessary component. If "reality" entails an abandonment of love, for purely calculated exchanges of benefit, that doesnt sound like reality at all. That more sounds like running scared from traumatic emotional consequences if such relationships go awry.
Feminism was as you pointed out, offering the kind of emotional security that comes with groupthink opposition to, and fear of men. "It's not my fault, its the patriarchy". That is a path that offers hollow meaning.
But instead, by your judgement it seems, Women are running from the security of an eschewing of assuming responsibility for themselves, to another form of security, in avoiding vulnerability altogether 🤔
"Ready to embrace the masculine"
Ignoring that a part of masculinity is in protection of others, yes, through aggression, but that is necessarily transposed with the capacity to be gentle with those they are protecting. This gentleness necessarily entails vulnerability, letting ones guard down.
If the future standard is to be cold and calculating exchanges of resources for self-interest, then you are fmpov, merely removing much of the necessary component of vulnerability in romantic relationships. And if the end goal is meaningful(material and spiritual) co-existence, then such a course of action would necessarily preclude that.
And then we will start reaping the rewards that we sow with children born of such relations, and the necessary societal failings that result thereof. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
@keithprosser
I don't think its even necessarily a lack of press
Keith's post presented a compelling angle too that i hadnt considered 🤔
Created: