Total posts: 17,895
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Well, if I was MOD and you said redirect all actions on GP to Drafter I would interpret that as redirect COP to Drafter without double-checking with you. I assume that is what Dudz did as he has now confirmed. If I was MOD, I would never have called that role ESCORT but perhaps Dudz did.Nevertheless, the fact that you thought you were deflecting when you were in fact redirecting has revealed a lie.
Let Supa say. And I’m not lying. I went off of what mod told me I could do. And he confirmed it. Let him say lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No vote?
I’m not voting till Supa clarifies on what actually happened. If what I’m describing is correct then I vote for Iron with the cop who investigated me innocent. If not then Supa needs to do something
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Vader
@oromagi
I don’t make the rules dude. Supa does, and I said to redirect all actions on GP to Drafter. And Supa did it. That’s mod not me. If I was incorrectly using the rule he should’ve said so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
READ what Supa just said. Your COP was redirected. You proved drafterman town.
No, actions ON GP were redirected
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We already know the scumteam from the scumslip. I really don't care which of the team we lynch but toaster is the most likely to get the votes.
I’ll probably vote with you. Who’s the scum team, I’m not trying to read up
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
<br>can u explain what Supa gave you with max detail without violating the no quote rule?
If Supa doesn’t explain the mechanics, then I will, cause I’m not trying to be mod killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Can you please tell everyone the mechanics of an Escort?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
gimme a link that supports your version of ESCORT role, pls. I have got nothing.
Dude I got nothing. I’m just going with the role Supa gave me in the chat. We can ask him about the mechanics tho
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Greyparrot
@drafterman
@Bullish
@oromagi
What are the chances of a cop and dreamer being in the same game? They’re both essentially investigative roles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Pie- from whence is your understanding of ESCORT derived?
From Supa lol. Cause that’s what’s in my PM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well goddamn it, everything is backwards now. Pie if you are town why the fuck would you do that. Drafter was absolutely the MOST likely person to be framed due to the voting DP1. If you are town, you might have cost town the game with that.
Your ability doesn’t get redirected. Actions on you get redirected. So if Singularity is claiming correctly, no one visited Drafter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
He redirected you to me. You got town results ON ME.
That’s false. I redirected actions ON GP to you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
In general, I think history has shown that the argument of "He acted X in the past but is acting Y now" isn't a good scum marker. It failed in Office. It failed in JARGOM. People's behavior is fluid.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. You act subconsciously. Any effort to act consciously will be visibly different. You’re screwed either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
<br>Hey, Pie. If you are town you will make some kind of claim now.
If you think GP is town then I’m town. I’ll gladly claim though.
Character: Chef
Role: 1x Escort which to my understanding is a redirect role, so I redirected all actions from GP to Drafter.
Created:
Posted in:
Haven’t read anything. Will read and vote ASAP tomorrow. I promise. Finished 3 college apps lmao
Created:
Posted in:
I’ll be active. I’ve just been grinding college apps cause today’s a deadline. But from what I’m reading rn, Singularity essentially lied to my face, which is definitely a problem
Created:
-->
@dustryder
What one special counsels does is not what all special counsels must do. In anycase it is useless pointing out what you think Mueller should've of done or what he could've done, because he has not done these things and has left these things up to congress.
I think you’re misunderstanding. Mueller had the power to reccomend impeachable offenses per precedent, but he chose not to do so. Instead he left it to his supervisors who being the top lawyers in the nation said nothing warrants the charge. Regardless, even if the question was open ended towards Congress, it’s been almost a year since the report was released. Why did they not impeach him then? Simple: there was no case to be made,
Created:
-->
@dustryder
This is extremely wrong. I'm unsure if you're just rewording it inaccurately or you're just unaware of the accurate facts. Perhaps you could present a line from the report or his testimony to support your case?In terms of conviction, Mueller made it extremely clear that because of the previous OLC opinion, he could not convict the President for anything. Conviction was never on the table for either collusion or obstruction.In terms of impeachment, it is also clear that he left that determination purely to congress, and that there were several incidences that had sufficient evidence that could be understood to be obstruction.
Mueller said he “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
So that gets rid of collusion which was the starting point of the whole investigation.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Now let’s go to obstruction. It is Trump’s constitutional right to fire any member of the executive branch. Regardless Mueller did not come to a conclusion whether there was obstruction or not. He left it to his supervisors Rod Rosenstein and William Barr who both stated there was not enough evidence to warrant an obstruction claim. As for the OLC claim, the Special Counsel has the power to reccomend impeachable offenses to Congress, which Bob Mueller chose not to do. The OLC furthermore does not reign supreme over the Supreme Court where a battle could have been taken, yet Bob Mueller chose not to do so. He didn’t reccomend charges to Congress nor fight the OLC opinion, why? There’s only one reasonable explanation: he didn’t have sufficient evidence to warrant an obstruction of justice which was corroborated by Rosenstein and Barr, the top lawyers in the nation.
What did the Clintons and Obama’s do?
Well let’s see. Bill Clinton committed perjury but was set free. One could argue he abused his power to get the famous sexual relation. Hillary Clinton rigged the DNC so she would win against Bernie. Hillary And the DNC also funded the infamous Steele Dossier which was proven to be false to obtain a warrant from the FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign..essentially modern day Watergate.
Eric Holder during Fast and Furious refused to give documents to Republicans after Obama asserted executive privilege. The same “obstruction” that Democrats are impeaching Trump for. It’s a sham and double standard. Oh I almost forgot, Lois Lerner purposefully targeting Conservative organizations. Keep in mind also that the whole wiretapping thing happened under the Obama administration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
I think we have good info to work off of, no need for more claims. Just get input from at least one of the inactives, then we can get a real lynch wagon going.
Have you played with Lunatic before? And what’s your stance on policy lynching inactives?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Should vanilla town claims be lynched? There are two possibilities: 1) That they are vanilla town or 2) They are mafia fake claiming. Mafia would know if option 1 is correct. In that case, leaving a claimed VT alive long enough helps scum narrow down the power roles
They should be taken with a grain of salt. There should be a lynch this DP no matter what. It can be inactive, which is a good policy or someone there’s consensus on with more than the majority of the majority
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Why can't we popcorn people for character and/or role?
In a game this big it’s better to use behavioral analysis first rather than rely on character claims and such. Tbh I was surprised that Lunatic even brought that up given his experience.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
It wasn't about sufficiency of evidence.
It is though. Mueller specifically said that he did not have sufficient evidence to convict the President nor present an impeachable offense.
It is known that he did those things and ordered those things and there is sufficient evidence to show so. It's about to what extent do those acts constitute crimes and whether he can be impeached for those acts, which is purely decided by the house and subsequently the senate
That is false. You’re innocent until proven guilty. If there’s not sufficient evidence there is no case to be made and hence there is no crime. In a court of law the evidence wouldn’t hold up so why would it in the Senate.
That’s opinion. In my opinion there’s a massive double standard especially towards what the Clintons and Obamas did. Without equality under the law why would I criticize someone for something when another did the same thing and got away with it. It’s a precedent I guess is what I’m trying to say.Of course legalities aside, such behaviour is obviously corrupt, so why do you defend him for such behaviour?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
You don't have quite the right idea for part 2 of the Mueller report. Mueller's wording was specific in that Trump was not exonerated, and left the matter to the house as to whether the described incidences can be concluded as acts of obstruction, and whether they should lead to impeachment
Clearly he didn’t have enough evidence, hence Trump can’t be convicted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Before I go, thoughts on a mass character claim?
No, we should proceed how we normally proceed in themed games and pressure certain people for character and/or role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Singularity
Unvote
Are you familiar with the rules and strategy ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Singularity
VTL Singularity
Please tell us your experience with Mafia and the theme of South Park
Created:
-->
@ebuc
What are you going to do when he wins again? Cry?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?
Mueller’s goal was to find Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign so that Trump could be impeached and removed from office. Mueller however stated that there was no collusion and he couldn’t find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and hence, there was no case at all for any criminal proceedings against the President nor impeachable offenses.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
This has nothing to do with the legality of impeding the Mueller investigation, because Trump was not impeached for anything related to the Mueller investigation. Impeachment was declared to be nonjusticiable in US v Nixon, matters outside of impeachment are not.
Yes and Mueller found nothing impeachable...
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Let's assume this is true.How does Trump being impeached prevent a ruling on this matter, especially when he was not impeached on the basis of this matter?andWhat rulings have the courts made concerning this matter?
U.S. v. Nixon (1993). Check it out....
Created:
-->
@dustryder
If you want to engage with me on a topic, you need to actually know what you're talking about instead of making up rubbish.
Have you even read the Constitution and studied the Federalist Papers along with past court cases on the issue? Cause I definitely have.
Courts make rulings based on indictments. It is standing procedure that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The courts haven't made a ruling because he has not been indicted. This does not mean that the courts cannot make a ruling because he's already been impeached. This is nonsense that doesn't mean anything
The Courts can force Trump to withdraw executive privilege and compel witness testimony, just like Nixon and the Watergate Tapes. But, since they already impeached him, now the Senate has the sole power to hold a trial. Sole power means sole power as the Supreme Court ruled in in U.S. v Nixon (1993) that the issue become non-justiciable as soon as an Officer of the United States has been impeached.
Courts can not determine the process, plain and simple because that’s the job of the Senate which is under the control of Mitch McConnell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People need to realize that they’ve been searching for a crime since Day 1 of his presidency. That basically shuts down every argument they have
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Is there a chance as time goes on, more people will leave Trump and join with some Democrat candidates
No. At this point the vast majority of voters have chosen sides. Trump is more popular today than on Election Day 2016. He just has to keep his opponent fairly low in approval and it’s smooth sailing. Trump won because Hillary was demonstrable and he converted Midwestern voters in droves. Especially with his African American and Hispanic approval higher, it could be a bigger victory than before.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pelosi not only thinks she is above the law and the courts but apparently above the Senate as well.
There are like 300k signatures for her impeachment
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Seriously though, I don't think Trump will actually win in 2020. We have a strong list of presidential Democrats now, and they might be taking over the senate in 2020. Also with the impeachment inquires, things don't look good for Trump...
He’ll win. The only argument that the Democrats have is Orange Man Bad. As for the Senate, it only goes Democratic if Trump loses by Romney margins. He raised 10 million in one day. People keep quiet about supporting Trump...that was demonstrated in 2016 and will be demonstrated again in 2020 after he wins again.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
The courts haven't made a ruling on these cases I believe. That, and they wouldn't making a ruling on whether or not the defense of this behaviour is morally reprehensible or pathethic. Any ruling would be purely based on the legality
They can’t make a ruling cause you already impeached him. Now it’s all with the Senate.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
The legality of these cases aside, I find your defense of obviously corrupt practices to be absolutely pathetic and morally reprehensible.
That’s for the courts to decide. Oh wait that obstruction, I’m going to impeach him 🤦♂️
Created:
-->
@dustryder
There were several cases where Trump explicitly impeded the investigationThe report found that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey shortly after Comey refused to end the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser. [Vol. 2, 75]
The FBI Director serves at the leisure of the President. It is legal for him to fire the FBI Director whenever he pleases per the Constitution
Trump tried to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to protect him by limiting the investigation into himself and his associates. [Vol. 2, pg. 97, 112, 113]
Again, legal. President can dictate policy initiatives to his Cabinet. Obama did the same thing with Eric Holder and Fast and Furious.
Trump ordered White House Counsel Donald McGahn to fire Special Counsel Mueller, but McGahn refused to carry out the order. Trump then ordered McGahn to lie about the attempted firing and create false records. [Vol. 2, pg. 89, 120]
Special Counsel also serves at the leisure of the President since he’s part of the Justice Department. It’s just bad optics to do so.
Trump actively discouraged his senior aides charged with crimes from cooperating with federal investigators by suggesting the possibility of pardons or threatening them in public and in private. [Vol. 2, pg. 120-128, 144-152]
Executive privilege is a right given to the executive branch along with the power to pardon Perth much anyone.
The report concludes that President Trump personally helped write a false statement for his son to give the public about a meeting with Russian operatives at the Trump campaign headquarters. He falsely claimed the meeting was to discuss adoption policy, rather than the real purpose of the meeting, which was to get information benefiting his campaign and damaging his opponent. [Vol. 2, pg. 101-103]
Just like how Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were talking about grandchildren right? And again there was no evidence of this occurring since Mueller wrote and testified that there was no collusion.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
<br>The whole point of precedent is that a decision has already been made for the interpretation for a law. Further situations that are similar to the precedent refer back to the decision of the precedent. The precedent in this case has already established that the president does not get to arbitrarily invoke privilege. I'm not sure how clearer it could possibly be
No. A precedent acts as a guide in cases. Every case is different. The Supreme Court decides whether the precedent holds or it doesn’t. Otherwise Plessy would never have been reversed.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
And if the witnesses were choosing, on their own, to fight the subpoena in court you might have a point. But that isn't what is happening. Trump, the alleged criminal, is ordering the witnesses to refuse the subpoena's. That is a very different scenario.
No it’s not lol. It’s grounds for executive privilege since the witnesses contacts with the President and Presidential advisors are being subpoenaed. Either way, it’s not up to you to determine that nor Congress. It’s for the courts to decide.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
The judicial branch has already issued a precedent on the usage of executive privilege in a case like this
It’s for the Supreme Court to decide whether the precedent holds, not Congress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
All good homie, good luck with the game!
Created:
Posted in:
I read somewhere that white liberals are most likely to think that it’s not ok to be white
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Nah I’m not playing till themes
Nothing personal. I’m just bored of these themeless games
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Nick looked like he was instigating violence at a protest. So the media denounced him for violence. i agree they acted without all the facts. But they were denouncing violence. Greta is trying to get the world to actually listen about a massive impending threat. She is not advocating for violence. She is completely peaceful. She has done nothing wrong. The right are attacking her personally.I agree there is a double standard. You want to point to what happened to nick as bad (which it was) and then point to what is happening to Greta (which is just as bad) and don't care. It is you who has the double standard.And also, she is advocating for a cause that effects the entire world. That is literally a selfless act.
Where are the apologies for Nick? Greta willingly is engaging in the political sphere and is open to criticism. And you thinking climate change is the biggest issue is your opinion. Difference between Nick and Greta is that Nick was caught in the political system while Greta was already a public figure in the political system.
Created: