Total posts: 17,895
-->
@HistoryBuff
A subpoena is already a legally binding order. The idea that once you receive a legally binding order and then you can just refuse to comply is insane. If you do that once when something seems odd, that would be one thing. When you order everyone to refuse every subpoena, that undermines the entire political system. It is an obvious stall tactic to prevent congress from doing it's constitutionally required job.
You can refuse a subpoena by taking it to court, which is well within the right of the person being subpoenaed.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
There literally is.
Contempt of Congress. Which is not impeachment.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It is within the rights of a defendant to order the witnesses to his crimes not to testify? You have a very strange opinion of how this is supposed to work. If the president really did have the power to prevent witnesses testifying to his crime he would be immune from criminal prosecution, he would be immune from being investigated by congress. He would be entirely above the law as no one would have the power to investigate him. That is a king.
Yes and no. As a coequal branch, he has the right to withhold information from Congress. Every President has done it. It’s called executive privilege which is not limited to documents...it encompasses people that the President has communications with. The method to overcome that is by going to the other coequal branch - the judicial branch. He’s not immune from being investigated. In fact the President has been getting investigated for 4 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. Going to the courts is not obstruction of Congress. It’s called going to the third and final coequal branch to resolve conflict between the other way. That’s how it has historically been done.
As for Abuse of power, that’s subjective and has no constitutional backing.
Its a sham that will endanger the 31 Democrats in Trump won districts (1 of whom is becoming a Republican).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
<br>The difference is what they are "accused" of. Nick looked like he was triggering violence at a protest. I agree that wasn't the case, but it looked like it was. Greta has never been accused of anything at all. She peacefully calls for action to save the world. The attacks against her are mostly personal when she hasn't done anything and everyone knows that.The difference is when the left found out nick didn't do anything wrong they stopped. The right knows Greta hasn't done anything wrong and they still keep on attacking.
Lmao the double standard is amazing. Sandman did nothing yet media was quick to jump on him. Greta goes to political summits and criticizes world leaders on climate. There’s a difference. She’s spoiled. He’s not.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You gonna respond to me?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not just the president that gets these protections against an abusive Congress, ordinary people get them too.
Agreed
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
<br>He is preventing witnesses from testifying about his crimes.
Which is within his right to do so. If you think it’s an overstepping of power, you go to the courts and they’ll interpret it. There’s a reason why there are 3 branches.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
umm what? One of the main purposes of congress is to act as a check on the executive branch. If the president can simply refuse to let them investigate then they cannot possibly act as that check. That combined with the justice department being told they can't charge him with a crime would make him completely immune from any repercussion of criminality, IE a king.
The Judicial Branch says hi
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
They cannot use foreign governments to do so. If they want to get the FBI to investigate that would be normal. Getting a foreign government to do it is a crime.
“Talk to AG Barr...”
But but that’s still wrong cause Barr is a Trumpist. You’re never going to admit it. Bribery did not happen. That’s your opinion on what happened. The articles are stupid too lol
There’s no such thing as obstruction of Congress. The Executive Branch is a coequal branch with executive privilege. The proper method to get documents is to litigate it and take it to the third branch of government - the judicial branch, just like what happened with Nixon. The President is well within his right to claim executive privilege and the courts get to decide whether the claim stands up.
Abuse of power is subjective. But that’s besides the point. None of these articles stand up to the clause over impeachment
Created:
Posted in:
/out
Finals week smh
Plus I’m tired of this unthemed stuff. #BringTheThemesBack
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
This would mean that Pie is town and is actually a bleeder and will die at the end of this round
How do you know I was shot?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
There’s something called school lol. I’m the bleeder. If NKed I survive till the end of the next DP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I would rather shoot Pie. I'd rather get my strongest read out of the way
Lmao what’s the reason? His statements were contradictory. First he supports Ragnar, then he says no
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Pie - Said Press was being contradictory when he wasn't? Also hasn't posted reads yet, and somehow isn't considering the read on Ragnar?
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What’re you on?PM'd Virt on Discord. Said that if Vig gets kill even if he is targettedVTL Pie
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Contextually, Press was answering a question from a noob (me) in #84, so I wouldn't get too hung up on the contradiction. Someone can explain game theory, and disagree with using it.
It was a complete 180 lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I was Mafia that game, and when not all Mafia members even joined the scum chat, it's a problem.
They weren’t inactive tho...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
we seem to be assuming that he made some kind of rookie mistake by outing as vig but my read of speed is that he is much smarter and more careful than that kind of move. I strongly doubt that speed is vig but that does not inform the question of scum.
Either way, he’s dead. If he’s lying he gets lynched or shot by the real vig himself or mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
ive got my vote down, lets lynch rag today and continue activity tomorrow.
No, let Speed kill him and confirm his town status
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I wish greyparrot would just admit that he is scum so we could move on to NP.
Can you please elaborate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@drafterman
@oromagi
@Speedrace
@PressF4Respect
What are the benefits of random lynching?If we lynch randomly, then the odds of hitting scum will be (at most) 40%.Doesn't seem like a good strategy at all from an analytical perspective.Can you explain why we should random lynch?
This directly goes against what Press said in Post 84
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
That said I still think he's scum
Which is irrelevant since Ragnar is going to die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Why not both?
I’m fine with that as long we as town establish who he shoots. Either Ragnar gets lynched and someone dies or someone else gets lynched and Ragnar dies. Either can confirm Speed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
It's confirmed that there is a vig, so no, he could theoretically lying and we still have two deaths.
Speed can’t lie. If he kills Ragnar he’s town. If Ragnar does not die, he’s not town and we lynch. Plain and simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why isn’t last to show sufficiently random?
Premise was established a long time ago when people were already active, therefore not random
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Well I guess we should lunch Water because he hasn’t gotten a chance to be online during this game.
This and post 84 seem like a half a** attempt to lynch Water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Yes. Though I'm always in favor of D1 lynches.
D1 lynches are a must. Speeds up POE so towards the end it’s easier to identify scum
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Granted, the last game I played (and only forum game) had a lot of MIA scum.
Link please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Barney
@oromagi
Any feedback on post #212?
It’s stupid. My inactivity is due to the fact I’m in/was in DART Survivor, Supa’s QF, DD’s Game.
Combine that with school and the last two weeks before finals with all the tests, I literally don’t have time. I’ll re-read and respond to everything today.
At best inactivity is a policy lynch if the person doesn’t respond. But I can and I will. This wagon is premeditated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
We should not be lynching Ragnar. Let speed confirm himself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
VTL Speed
Speed is smart man. There is NO WAY in hell that any scum partner would let him get away with that if he was a noob. Speed can't be that idiotic and claim only town power role on the FIRST DP!My guess this is a noob and pro team, meaning that Speedrace and Ragnar could easily be on a team.
This is stupid, Vig is easily confirmable. If he’s lying there won’t be 2 NKs tonight and we lynch him. It’s suicide for scum to claim vig. This screams opportunism to me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Yeah I think Lunatic was getting paranoid or something. I dunno.
Abnormal of him don’t ya think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
If you were the vig, would you forfeit your kill NP1?Thoughts on Ragnar wanting to sincerely lynch the person who posts lasts?
1) Depends. If I feel strongly like 75% that person is scum, I’d shoot
2) Think he’s just a noob lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I have never seen anyone say any crime that Joe or Hunter could have committed.
Ya if you only get news from Leftist source that might happen
There simply is no evidence that they did. But if they had, the legal way to proceed would be to get the FBI or congress to investigate. Asking the president of Ukraine to do it is a crime.
If the crime occurred in the Ukraine, we have no jurisdiction over it. And that’s what happened.
The problem is the profit motive. If trump had asked about some random person he had no benefit to investigating, then that would not breach election laws. But because he did stand to directly benefit from it, it is illegal. It could still break the other laws he is guilty of breaking though.
See this is your problem. You’re under the impression that there was a motive behind it — it’s a predisposed bias. A normal unbiased person would see Joe Biden as a problem worth investigating.
Of course not. that is what law enforcement agencies are for. Trump chose not to do that though, so he broke the law.
Once again: not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. if the crime occurred in Ukraine.
And they did exactly what they were supposed to. they asked the FBI to investigate. If trump had done that we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead he went and committed some crimes by trying to get the Ukrainians to smear his political rival.
Still using investigation for political benefit. You’d be saying oh how could he investigate a potential challenger. Don’t worry, when the FISA Report comes out Monday, we’ll just have political the wiretapping was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."He explicitly asks him to look into biden and his son. That is asking for dirt.
Or asking for a legitimate investigation into a crime. For example, if Trump replaced Biden with me, you wouldn’t we saying “dirt.” Your problem is the coincidence that the person is a candidate running from President. Even then they’re just as much prone to investigation. Just because you’re running for President doesn’t mean you get a pass. If this were the case the entire Russian investigation should be null and void. It started while Democrats were in office against a candidate running for President. Hold yourself to the same standard buddy.
Created: