Lurker > Wanglicious

tagging main account with this.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

8TB is not a storage size that they've yet to create Blue/"Blue" drives. the easystorage series recently had that change for 4TB drives as people unfortunately found out just last week.

8TB though, that's a different story.

WD Blue (and formerly Green) maxes at 6TB.
WD Black maxes at 6TB.
WD Red and Purple max at 8TB.

these are guaranteed to be red. technically nothing should be stopping you from cracking it open and having a fantastic internal 8TB drive. these are 3.5" HDDs, 2.5" hasn't really gotten past 5TB yet.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/wd-easystore-8tb-external-usb-3-0-hard-drive-black/5792401.p?skuId=5792401


but anyway, get 'em before they sell out because they will sell out at that price point. it's a super good deal on storage finally.


edit:
WD Red proof:
https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage.html


and if you DO intend to take it out of the case you have to be careful. there's a certain process for it, it ain't a simple unscrew and done. can post more on that later if anybody's doing that, there's a pdf that explains it all.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

i think she's crazy on some things but relatively sane on others.
however a scammer through it all who will make a buck no matter who the expense is.

like i can agree with her on many things but the whole thing she did after the election with that stupid fundraiser was among the most cruel and self-serving things i've seen a politician do. and that includes anything with Trump.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

Pence/Stein 2020.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

i don't know how it is in canada but generally here in the US it's extremely difficult for one to get fired. take the one who killed Castile - they were prepared to A) fire him if guilty, or B) literally pay him to resign if not guilty. and they did, to the tune of just under $50,000. or basically what i assume was a year of pay.

because if not guilty, it's a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to fire him. civil servants have ridiculously good protection. you don't hear many things in the investigation because generally there's two completely separate investigations going on, one by the prosecution, the other by the internal department, and nobody wants to make a public statement until it's done. investigations are slow so unless you can prove wrongdoing of course he'll be paid. just not actually working or doing administrative work instead as that's the best they can do.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

cops are civil servants and unless the guy's on probation (see: he's a new cop) they literally can't fire him, the most they can do is suspend him as they look into it. charges being put on him would also likely happen before it's possible to fire him. if guilty of a crime, he's out. if not guilty, he may or may not, all depends if he's violated enough rules that they have reason to fire.

if you're wondering "how would he be not guilty?" bear in mind that there's more footage on the camera. some that we've seen does show that they were searching for drugs prior to all of this and it's possible that in those recordings, they found something there. the argument would then be that they were trying to re-create the scene.

a stupid argument i know, but still. just saying there are more facts that we aren't aware of which are being actively looked into. for the immediate case, charges were dismissed either way. so at the least the guy accused isn't in trouble.


for the immediate effect, the main guy is a witness for 53 open cases. he managed to testify for one of those cases after the news broke and it was because the state attorney and prosecutor weren't aware of it. very next day, memo to the judge and i'm not sure where they're at but i'm pretty sure they're effectively going to nullify his testimony. he's probably not going to any of the other ones even if it were possible (which i don't know), he's straight up poison right now. things are moving along and the state is limiting what the three cops can do, especially the one who planted it.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

in the land of FAKE NEWS, there was this story.
3 days ago an LA Times journo posted this on twitter:

http://archive.is/9AMUV
My friend's husband died of glioblastoma in AZ. They wrote a letter to McCain begging for his help. He advised them to move.

that tweet blew up, got about 11k retweets and 17k+ likes. retweets are the relevant one there.
eventually people tracked down the friend, got more of the story, and it was deleted the next day with an apology.

turns out that the only facts that can be verified are that a) the friend exists, b) the husband did die, and c) it was due to cancer and a fight over health insurance. obviously that's a terrible way to go but the attack on McCain is where the story drops.

there's no proof of this claim, no proof that McCain wrote anything, and it's highly doubtful that he would've since he wouldn't be able to do anything either; he's a federal senator and health insurance is a state issue. as the drama went down, the facebook friend updated with another post, moving it from "McCain" to "his office." but again, there's no proof. so we have an unverified claim that's walked back on something that he wouldn't be able to do anything about, which would've likely been shipped over to people who can (e.g., state officials) as they'd be able to give the best advice. which may well have been "then move." pretty shitty advice to get but not something to fault McCain over. while the individual person can by all means be mad at him, the second a journo covers it that way, it's now a story which you'd better be able to confirm.

as a result, the journo did issue an apology the next day and deleted her tweet. apologized in two tweets with the same comment, at that.

currently those two tweets sit at 23 and 9 RTs respectively and it's been 2 days.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

...the cases the 3 cops have done ARE being looked at.
do you not know how any of this works? or read anything on it? him getting suspended is the first thing to do as they investigate further. the fact that he got instantly suspended for it is a good sign.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

xp1337 posted...

Well, I mean, which aspect of the story is most interesting is a matter of personal opinion, I think. No problems with you disagreeing on that, but I also don't think there's much to say on it.

i do think there's a lot, lot of room to explore on the idea of a Kushner and Ivanka pardon, way more than the presidential one, though people aren't actually thinking about it beyond "lol resign." even when they're out, investigation wouldn't stop because there's more people to look at. and i'm not even sure if Ivanka is in or out, she's just fucking there. you're way too dismissive of that one - you had two different regulars last topic point out different things they hadn't thought about when it came to pardons. it's not a field explored well and there's a lot of meat there.

but since we're talking about polls, this is a good segway to re-post the last thing regarding trust in trump vs media:

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll - released July 3rd, 2017, covering June 21-25.
https://tinyurl.com/ybfxxcfa

37% trust Trump vs. 30% trust media. Congress is 29% in this poll.

Politico/Morning Consult poll, July 7-9:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-3324-db11-a3df-fb3da4360000

information being viewed as credible from the white house was 21% very and 31% somewhat. trump himself is 22% and 24%.
CNN - 26%, 28%
Fox - 24%, 31%
MSNBC - 23%, 31%
WaPo - 24%, 32%
NYT - 26%, 31%
WSJ - 26%, 36%
ABC - 28%, 34%
NBC - 27%, 34%
CBS - 27%, 35%
PBS - 29%, 34%


pretty close, though news does generally win, though it's basically within margin of errors.


i mean i'm sure i can find data that heavily skews to media trust but there's a fair number of polls out there that put them either damn close or with Trump ahead. either one of those should terrify you.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

not spicey enough/10
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

xp1337 posted...

But so long as we disagree about it not being "nothing" and instead being something reasonable to discuss/report then this isn't going to go anywhere because it's a critical point that you're basing the rest of your argument off of.

well yeah, we aren't going to agree on this position. if you don't have something concrete, i'm just going to go straight to "then you have nothing" usually. you either have evidence of this being something or it's something i'm going to dismiss. still, i don't think it's as critical a point as you're making it out to be and is independent of calling that tweet clickbait. i mean i am fairly aggressive on this but part of that is straight up annoyance and frustration, like i said already. it's also quite possible to argue even around that point. your position of this being a more interesting story than Kushner - heavily disagree and i gave a bunch of examples of how they can be much, much more interesting and damning than just president trying to pardon himself.


but i ain't holding it against you if you wanna drop it.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

LordoftheMorons posted...

WSJ has the most effective paywall

dude.
the archive link i posted was the WSJ.
https://archive.is/378mc
Jared Kushner Discloses Dozens More Assets in Revised Financial Filing
Ivanka Trump disclosed $2.5 million in salary and severance from her father’s businesses


so again:
is Ivanka a "civil officer" or not? she didn't need congressional approval, she gets no pay, what is she?
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

Jakyl25 posted...

Wanglicious posted...

people trust media less than Trump.

IIRC this actually isn't true

well... let's see.
NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll - released July 3rd, 2017, covering June 21-25.
https://tinyurl.com/ybfxxcfa

37% trust Trump vs. 30% trust media. Congress is 29% in this poll.

Politico/Morning Consult poll, July 7-9:
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-3324-db11-a3df-fb3da4360000


information being viewed as credible from the white house was 21% very and 31% somewhat. trump himself is 22% and 24%.
CNN - 26%, 28%
Fox - 24%, 31%
MSNBC - 23%, 31%
WaPo - 24%, 32%
NYT - 26%, 31%
WSJ - 26%, 36%
ABC - 28%, 34%
NBC - 27%, 34%
CBS - 27%, 35%
PBS - 29%, 34%


pretty close, though news does generally win, though it's basically within margin of errors.


i mean i'm sure i can find data that heavily skews to media trust but there's a fair number of polls out there that put them either damn close or with Trump ahead. either one of those should terrify you.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

hmm.. never tried WSJ with incognito. anytime i just see the "subscribers only! log in now!" type of thing i just make an archive and see what happens.

Jakyl25 posted...

That's who Trump Jr, Manafort, and Kushner are testifying to next week.

Trump Jr under oath?
wonder how clean he's gonna be.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

Jakyl25 posted...

For those blocked by WaPo, here's the gist

it's a different article but i think you might've meant WSJ?
since they do block unless you're a subscriber.

or use archives. like this one.
https://archive.is/378mc
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

TheRock1525 posted...

This was posted earlier but everyone missed thanks to Wang and SEPs never-ending argument.

the more names that get added to this list of never ending arguments the better.


xp1337 posted...

Well, I feel disappointed having written all that and only getting those parts responded to!

what else did you want a response to exactly? i mean i agree with some of your points, though unsurprisingly my main break with your list is on this:

xp1337 posted...

2. As a result, you attack the whole thing as clickbait and call anyone claiming otherwise ridiculous. (This is where I think things irreparably break down because I think this is uncalled for)

as yeah, i do find it completely ridiculous to focus on the wrong part, the part that's pure speculation if you'd prefer to call it that as opposed to me simply calling it bullshit, an ass pull, etc, over the actual material inside. yes, that's ridiculous. it's what helps fuel FAKE NEWS time and time again, it's just one side going "aha, see! i have something!" when they have no clothes. dozens of articles now exist based on that little piece of fluff. the rest of it, which is a million times more important, is dead. and we will do this again and again until people stop going for the fucking bait.

when i say clickbait i mean you're baiting for clicks on a story that isn't actually what it's about. there's the YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT type of clickbait, this ain't it. this is the more... rag style where they bring you in on one story and it's not really grounded, relevant to the material, and pretty weak overall, but it's presented as something huge. that clearer?

xp1337 posted...

I feel like you believe the first part and either see malice in it or can't believe/accept that some people might feel otherwise and therefore seek to claim and prove the latter aggressively.

malice for some, yes.
for others it's more of a case of frustration where they don't see it's the same stupid song and dance and they have yet to identify that things like these are why people trust media less than Trump. it's exactly this sort of thing that drives people away.

xp1337 posted...

I get that I'm not helping in the eyes of most of the topic, but

fuck 'em.
it's the politics topic, arguments are a key part of it. if a handful bitch and whine about arguments existing in "their topic," that shouldn't bother you, it just says


i mean you can't even say i wasn't trying to move the convo to actual key issues either - that's literally my biggest complaint about this whole thing. by all means, discussion over Kushner and Ivanka involving pardons is better. or the ways Trump is purposefully trying to screw and limit Mueller, that's big, even with one of his lawyers admitting to specifics no less.

but some don't want to do that.
they'd rather just bury the story too. "whoops."
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

kevwaffles posted...

They could literally just say a president was failing to supervise or had unbecoming conduct with basically no burden of proof outside of being able to convince enough Senators to convict. The simplest reason it doesn't/didn't happen is because the political fallout would be tremendous.

mmm... alright, that's fair. i'll give you that, though the people are still a check there which prevents it from being "anything they want to." political fallout is a fair justification too, though it's not as set in stone as i'd have thought it was.

SupremeZero posted...

They attempted to impeach Clinton on almost nothing, and got laughed at for it by the public. You think they were going to try to impeach Obama on LITERALLY nothing?

eh?
this is an argument that agrees with me. my argument is that Congress can't impeach for whatever the hell it wants to. your argument here is that the public would've laughed and told them to fuck off way harder if they seriously went with literally nothing. which... means that Congress can't impeach for whatever the hell it wants to. otherwise they could've.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So we've gotta have 50+ more posts because Wang wants more nuance in his 140 character tweets. Got it.

there ain't any nuance there, that's just not what the article is about and is BS theorycrafting in favor of the actual material, which is clickbait being used on twitter in ways that they can't get it done in the article due to having any standards.

far as i can tell most of the argument is far, far less about me calling it clickbait (with the exception of xp1337) and more about the value of him mentioning limits of pardons. which is a shittier take!

StealThisSheen posted...

If your issue is that people aren't going "Oh no he may try to pardon Kushner/Ivanka/etc.," that's because... That's not news. We've discussed that possibility dozens of times before. Of course he'd try to pardon his family/etc. That's not new.

where has this been discussed in depth? got an article? and i mean actually in depth. why is it that we've had two regular users in this very topic came up with two different "I just realized something" posts with regards to pardons on others? why have i never seen:

- if Kushner resigns and then gets pardoned the investigation that would be used against him would be over but then it could be used for a case against Trump.
- if Trump does a broad pardon like i mentioned a bit before yours, it runs into a few different scenarios.
- if there's any aide that's afraid of speaking up, they now have legal immunity of any crimes.
- their protections of incrimination aren't an issue for anything that's password protected or encrypted, so if they have any files on a PC that may be useful for a greater investigation (see: Trump himself), they can be told by the courts to unlock it or be held in contempt of court
- the situation where Kushner doesn't resign.
- since Ivanka is unpaid, is she a civil officer?
- if not, then she can't be impeached so if she gets pardoned, what happens to her position?
- if being unpaid means you aren't a civil officer, does that mean Kushner can resign, be pardoned, and then be given a special position by Trump too?

or anything else along these lines anywhere except for my post just today in this topic?
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

...Where the hell did I even say this?

You're literally creating things to argue about.

then i'll take a step back here: what, specifically, is the fluff?

because a good 80%+ of that article is about exactly what that headline said it was about, going into great detail.
that is the substance in the article. that is not fluff. all those things that i listed there are things in that 80%, about that headline.

but these three things, which you said "is all that it's saying:"

1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go
2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!"
3. Current discussions are theoretical

are the fluff of the article.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

like lemme get this straight.

the actual headline is fluff.
the overwhelming majority of the content inside is fluff.
the facts, specific details, interviews with Trump's lawyers, opposing lawyers, details of what they're looking into to remove Mueller, the backstage politics of how he's reacting to Mueller, what his lawyers are specifically trying to block him on, that's all fluff.

no seriously, the actual fucking headline is fluff.
an article titled this:

"Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation"

of which 80%+ of it is about specifically and exclusively that
is fluff.

what the fuck?
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

The rest, with it discussing Trump pardoning himself, if it's possible, etc... Is basically fluff. Those are the main points of the article.

...you've got it completely backwards.
when the fuck did actual reporting become fluff?
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

xp1337 posted...

But secondly, how are you making the jump from "theoretical" to "not seriously"? Do you think you can't discuss hypotheticals or theories seriously? I'm not even being snarky there, I'm genuinely baffled at how you get "not serious" from "theoretical."

i like it being discussed.
i don't like it being used for clickbait in an article that's not about it.

xp1337 posted...

but it's not going to go anywhere productive.

i don't think we're going to go anywhere productive if you're stuck on my calling it nothing and continue to ignore everything else i mentioned there - Kushner being a much more realistic subject and what the article was actually about. if that does not matter to you then no, we won't be getting anywhere.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

Literally all the article is saying is:

1. Trump brought up the subject of how far his pardon powers can go
2. He's not currently going "I'm pardoning myself right now yes yes yes!"
3. Current discussions are theoretical

no.
you missed 80%+ of the article.

which is a huge frustration of mine here as i've repeatedly stated.

and hey, my gut has been pretty good with Trump! i know the new york mafioso type well.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

Why do you keep saying "Theoretical" means that there's nothing there. Theoretical just means that nothing is happening right now, because he'd have no reason to pardon yet. Theoretical doesn't mean "He isn't even thinking about it."

because in this context (see: not science), 'theoretical' basically just means there could be something that and there could not be something there. you don't have anything grounding you so it's not much, if at all, different than pulling it out of your ass.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

xp1337 posted...

spoilers: congress can impeach for whatever the hell it wants to

...no, they can't.
if they could, obama would've been.

xp1337 posted...

That would only be a decent discussion in a law school. As a practical thought experiment it's near worthless. Just have anyone with any possible issues resign their position and problem solved. See: Nixon.

what? no.
if Kushner resigns and then gets pardoned the investigation that would be used against him would be over but then it could be used for a case against Trump. if Trump does a broad pardon like i mentioned a bit before yours, it runs into a few different scenarios. if there's any aide that's afraid of speaking up, they now have legal immunity of any crimes. or you have Jakyl's scenario, they're compelled to testify before Congress. their protections of incrimination aren't an issue for anything that's password protected or encrypted - they're safe. so if they have any files on a PC that may be useful for a greater investigation (see: Trump himself), they can be told by the courts to unlock it or be held in contempt of court. and then we have the situation where Kushner doesn't resign. then what? he's a civil officer, right? if so then we're in the same turf as Trump himself. so either we get a mini-Trump case or we get it on everyone else. after all that, we still have Ivanka. Kushner's wife, Trump's favorite child, and currently working as an unpaid assistant.

well if she's unpaid, is she a civil officer?
if not then she can't really be impeached now can she? so if she gets pardoned, then what happens to her position and what does that mean for everyone else? similarly, if being unpaid means you aren't a civil officer, does that mean Kushner can resign, be pardoned, and then be given a special position by Trump too?

these are just a few examples that i can come up with off the top of my head and do ultimately lead to the story that even pardoning Kushner or Ivanka may save either of them but it absolutely does not save Trump himself. all you're telling me is that when it comes to this subject, as a practical thought experiment, you aren't actually thinking about it because nobody told you to think about it. if it was written down in one of these outlets, maybe you'd change your mind because there's a lot to unpack there.

xp1337 posted...

As a matter of public interest the legal idea of a self-pardon is absolutely more interesting if the idea has been brought up.

it's a lot more dumbed down, sure.
but it's definitely not more interesting.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

xp1337 posted...

literally? i'll take a quote please

Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations. But if Trump pardoned himself in the face of the ongoing Mueller investigation,


there is nothing else to work with here. unless you think that there are other people who said that this was taken seriously, although the WaPo never mentioned that and instead just pointed out people telling them that there's nothing really here on this subject.


xp1337 posted...

I'm taking issue with the idea that you know for sure which one is correct and that the other is absolutely absurd and anyone humoring it is ridiculous.

there's two different points in this.
the first where you take issue with what i'm saying is correct - fair.
but that people humoring it aren't being completely ridiculous - that's something else entirely.

it is ridiculous to see people creating a story out of nothing and then choosing to use that instead of a far more rational answer (Kushner) or the factual basis of everything else written in that article that's completely unrelated to this. it is stupifying to see the most extreme bullshit - and if your argument is "well there could be something here despite being told there isn't" that's what it is - being the talking point over the actual issue because it's just catchier, hits all those wish fulfillment points, and doesn't bother to ground itself. it is ridiculous to see a bit grounded in nothing being used for clicks, overwhelming the actual story, and ultimately may well lead to another proper cry of "FAKE NEWS."

xp1337 posted...

If I think what you're saying is BS how is it a fact that I'm arguing for something "completely made of BS"?

that's me thinking you're defending the "HE'S TRYING TO PARDON HIMSELF!" story as opposed to you taking issue to my positions. you're clearly not, so my bad there.

xp1337 posted...

right because you had completely dismissed a possible interpretation of the situation and i'm trying to figure out under what logical basis you're doing so

that bit on twitter has almost nothing to do with the article. seriously, over 80% of it has nothing to do with it. and if i'm being specific here, trump saying he's trying to pardon himself, that's at best 5% of forced discussion, intertwined with political theory of what's possible or not. that's clickbait. you clicked for a story that doesn't actually have a real story to it on an article that barely mentions it.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

LapisLazuli posted...

Putting Wang in ignore was very liberating. Shame about the quoting.

xp1337 posted...

do you think pardons are limited in use? or have a cooldown?

well yeah, there's a limit.
"case of impeachment."

now how that has been defined, i don't know. but i do know things as low as misdemeanors could be used to impeach, so if you take the logical conclusion that such things would be cases of impeachment, that'd work. of course, courts don't follow common sense all the time so maybe there's some case law that awkwardly defines it.

xp1337 posted...

of course he's also looking at what he can do to for his inner circle, the article says as much

as barely a footnote before writing a couple paragraphs on the legal ideas behind a president pardoning himself.
so instead of focusing on what a presidential pardon on Kushner would mean, something that has a strong basis in reality on a guy who seems pretty trapped, we get useless facts. if that article got into Kushner's position as a civil officer, what "case of impeachment" means, and what each entails, that could've been good and relevant.


Jakyl25 posted...

A good point about pardoning I had forgotten

It removes your ability to plead the 5th regarding the crime you've been pardoned for, because you can no longer "incriminate" yourself.

Depending on who he pardons, that could bite Trump

yeah, very real possibility that if somebody resigns, gets pardoned, any contents for that one person's investigation
of course, Trump can pardon a group of people. he could simply go with a broad pardon where he says anybody who's worked on his campaign is pardoned with respect to anything to do with Russia or Russian agents.

but that would work on anyone who isn't a civil officer, president, or vice president. and if it's something to move forward with against one of those, "whoops."
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

xp1337 posted...

and how do you know this?

know what? that "can't wait to" means "really want to?" if so then it's a common phrase. that's the only way it really makes any sense. not to mention that if trump is ever going "can't wait to ___!" for something he just does it. he's as impulsive as it gets.

xp1337 posted...

in part for the reason you mentioned, he knows how bad it would look in regards to whether he did anything wrong.

oh no, it's not that it would look bad.
it's that he himself would admit that he did bad.

that's just not happening.

xp1337 posted...

tl;dr: You're stating with a lot of certainty exactly what is intended by all these statements with no basis I can see.

one of the statements literally said it's pure theorycrafting. what do you expect that to even mean beyond pulling-it-out-of-my-ass? there's no basis to believe he's trying to pardon himself. but in claiming so, you get clicks for a story that is entirely driven by wish fulfillment as opposed to an actual story. and as you do that, you end up the far more likely scenario of pardoning Kushner and Ivanka, him digging into Mueller to remove the guy, and him trying to stop the guy from digging too much.

even if you believe that everything i've said is bullshit, the fact remains that you'd be stuck with arguing for something that is both out of character and completely made of bullshit instead of focusing on things that are in character and that are actually happening.


remember that this argument began with me saying that tweet is clickbait.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

oh yeah, it's also worth noting that you guys are arguing over a clickbait tweet that didn't get at all into what the article was about instead of talking about the actual article with actual facts and details of trump's administration trying to fuck mueller, limit him, and try to kick him out.

and you're ignoring that based entirely off a fantasy where he admits wrongdoing as opposed to trying to save his daughter and son in law from prison.


that just needs to be pointed out.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

xp1337 posted...

doesn't mean much of anything. The way I read that is the advisor simply saying the plan isn't to go, "Okay, we can do this? Sweet! brb doing it right now." It could very well still be figuring out if he can pardon himself in case he needs to later. I mean, I guess you can try to read it however you want, but saying "it's nothing" is wrong, IMO.

that's just too literal and wouldn't make much sense as a response. the phrase "can't wait to do __!" is another way of saying that you really want to do something. so it's not in the context of "I really want to do this," it's just stuff mentioned along the way.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, if it was the same people... Why would they feel the need to say it was all currently theoretical if "There's nothing there?"

because the main info is that he's talking about pardons. that's where the story should be. the idea that he's trying to pardon himself is pure fantasy even by the ones leaking but that doesn't really matter as talking about pardons period is the concern. a guy with that ego ain't gonna admit to wrongdoing of any kind, ever, and that's what a pardon basically would be in his own mind.

but he would use it to keep his son in law and favorite kid out of jail.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, the info didn't come from the adviser that said he's just trying to get an understanding. That's who commented when they reached out for more. Otherwise it wouldn't be presented like that.

one of the advisers leaked it.
a second one then replied to them, affirming the leak.
and then both of them agree that there isn't anything there.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

Also, this. The way it's being reported doesn't suggest they initially got the info from the aides. It sounds like they got the info, then reached out to the aides for comment.

re-read it.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.
“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.

(...)

Currently, the discussions of pardoning authority by Trump’s legal team are purely theoretical, according to two people familiar with the ongoing conversations.


way it's written it's really just the two advisers. the same two in the last one are the same two in the first bits, otherwise there'd be more said. they're the leakers and the ones privately saying what's going on. i'd imagine that them saying hey that's just a claim not grounded in anything is a good way to take it, yes. so of course when you're told "guys, it's purely theoretical," aka, that there's nothing there, what you do is double down on a base containing literally nothing. that makes sense.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

you really think he just started asking it yesterday, as opposed to sometime in the past week? just to remember how fast everything is going, it was 10 days ago Don Jr revealed he's the dumb one on twitter, 8 days since Kushner updated the list of 100+ Russians he evidently drank too much vodka with, and 7 days since Shep Smith revealed to Trump that this actually matters and that Kushner is fucked via Fox.

i'd assume he's been asking/thinking about asking ever since Fox can't defend him completely. which would make sense if this is an ongoing discussion where he gets an intro to pardoning powers.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

The disconnect is that people are reading between the lines and, rightfully so, wondering "Why is he asking about the extent of his pardoning powers" and saying it looks bad, given the timing.

...except i agree with that.
and have said so, repeatedly, that he's looking into it for Kushner and by extension, Ivanka.

StealThisSheen posted...

While you're just sitting there refusing to read between the lines and going "Trump's aides say he's just curious and isn't thinking about pardoning himself, so he's just curious and not thinking about pardoning himself."

no it's that the issue of the president issuing a pardon has very, very few limitations and the only explicit limits is about impeachment. it's a very small hop to go "wait so can the president pardon himself?" from that as just a throwaway question because everyone thinks "president" when they hear "impeachment." if you're seriously focused on this idea then congrats, you're falling for one of the stupidest ideas which has no basis of anything of why he's asking about pardons and not looking at the obvious answer of his son in law who's fucked in a big way right now.

the washington post states two people talked to them about this.
the same two people who leaked this info to the washington post are the ones who said that it isn't him talking about himself. why would they leak the info and lie? if it raises questions for you then raise the questions to the right people, by targeting trump himself it looks silly and dumb.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

My Immortal posted...

Are pardon's a blanket thing or do they have to specify what they are being pardoned for

for an in depth analysis here: https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

but your basic summary is...

as long as the pardon isn't to the president, vice president, or civil officer: full blanket.
as long as the pardon isn't regarding a case of impeachment for the above people: full blanket.


a bit more in depth...
the only explicit restriction is "in case of impeachment." there's also a criminal/civil split but that's not really relevant here. as long as we're talking about criminal law and it's not about somebody getting impeached: yes, it's a blanket thing. that's why Ford was able to pardon Nixon; now that he wasn't in power anymore there's no case of impeachment to be had, therefore he's free game.

though 99% of people immediately think "president" when they hear the word "impeachment," that isn't quite right. exact wording:

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

so president, VP, and all civil officers, which would include judges. the criteria for that is also that they need to commit treason, bribery, other high crimes (e.g., felonies), or misdemeanors.


the last one matters a lot as a misdemeanor isn't a very difficult threshold to reach. if it's an infraction/violation, that should be fine (e.g., you aren't going to get impeached for having too many speeding tickets). so if you want to play with the idea of trump pardoning himself or quite frankly, anyone who's officially a civil officer, the answer is very murky since you could technically argue that if you commit any of those crimes, a case of impeachment could be had. but the second any of those people leave their position, they can be pardoned without issue.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

Emeraldegg posted...

I kind of get it, because the article is kind of jumping to conclusions by using the sentence "trump's lawyers seek to undercut Mueller's Russia investigation" Like him asking about pardons isn't explicit proof that that's what he's trying to accomplish, and I don't really see how that affects mueller at all.

nono, you also haven't read it. here: http://archive.is/JIG8J

the first segment covers the headline.

segments 2-4, a total of five sentences, say what that tweet said and follow up with the only two comments basically being that he's trying to see the limits to his powers and that no, he's not trying to pardon himself.

and then segments 5 through 30 are about the headline, going in great detail. the headline on the article is accurate, it's that journo's twitter byline that's the clickbait. the article isn't about that at all and after all that when they return to pardons, they themselves explicitly state that everything they're talking about regarding pardons is theoretical. Washington Post is the one going from that and doing the full jump the idea of trump pardoning himself, which is completely off base. any questions regarding that power are realistically to save Kushner and Ivanka. then they awkwardly jump in between the issues for another 3-4 segments, end article.


over 80% of that article is based on that headline and it goes into a lot of depth. the bit about pardoning himself? yeah, that's just something that they themselves admit is just them running with a completely made up idea.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Oh my god, clickbait for repeating words directly from the article !!

and then if you just look at the next two paragraphs you'll get exactly what i posted, where the only two comments are that he's trying to figure out what the power can do and that no, the conversation isn't about pardoning himself.

meaning that the full scope this has is that there isn't anything to really highlight, let alone use to say... bait people on twitter to clicking on the article.

"Oooh, what is this going to be about?"
"Oh, that this isn't actually what it's about."

but to get to those next two paragraphs you'd actually have to read the article.

hell, the headline is "Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller's Russia investigation" and that is the what it's mostly about. which is very different than the twitter clickbait.

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm referring to you saying that him asking if he can pardon himself isn't alarming.

The only way it isn't is if you just assume he's doing so innocently like some child in a museum

no, it's because that's something that will always come up if you're trying to discuss limits of the power. it's one of the only limitations you've got.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

being right and pointing out some shitty journo practices being used is indeed classic wang, yes.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

where'd you get that? i literally said that the issue of the presidential pardon should be posed to Kushner as that's a far more accurate take. i've made it pretty damn clear that's why i think Trump is asking. how is any of that "innocent?"

who can he pardon, what can he pardon, what limits are there to pardoning - each of these questions ultimately gets you back to the president pardoning himself as a limit. impeachment is generally considered something to do with presidents so even if you just say the specific words, the immediate followup will be asking if the president can pardon himself. that's part of why it's just a non-starter. it doesn't work as a story because that's just normal conversation about it.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

StealThisSheen posted...

The fact that he's even trying to understand IF he can pardon himself is pretty alarming

it's really not, the only context we have here are people saying "no, he's not saying he'd like to pardon himself." basically means he's trying to understand what limits, if any, exist on it. fact is the only big one that even exists is a president pardoning himself. it's very easy to think of scenarios where the idea could come up since it's one of the big limitations of the power and even a half assed Q&A of the presidential pardon would include it.

"hey, how does this pardoning thing work? do they need to do something or can i just do it and poof, it's like magic. any charge gone. does that work on anyone? even me? how does that work?"

i mean you can stretch that out into a convo just fine if you get some back and forth explaining the rules of impeachment. like can a president pardon himself if it's not a case of impeachment?

basically you're talking to a third grader who has a blanket power and doesn't know anything. i wouldn't doubt they had to explain Ford's pardon on Nixon.


mind you, trump wouldn't pardon himself because that would assume he's done wrong. that ain't something he's about to be doing or thinking of doing anytime soon. Kushner though, that's family. Trump very much so acts and runs things like a mafia so things like family and loyalty are important. brings us back to that question i've said a few times: just how far is trump going to go for Kushner and Ivanka? because i can very, very easily see him ruin himself to protect them.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

i was surprised when the story stopped. was prepared for a lot more but honestly, this works too. limits my figuring out how to do everything and i can leave it mostly at doing my dailies.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

finally... doing a bit of math here...

$25 is the cost.
10 tickets + 4* guarantee is basically a twisted form of a 10+1. one where you can pick when to use each summon, at that.

the NRG potions is basically 2 full restores, only you can choose when to use it. these are nice if you're grinding a certain event or something.

moogle is a good moogle.
ATK +30% still holds good value.

this isn't a mind blowing bundle but there's a lot of customization on the user's end and it overall seems good. even if you stack different offers (e.g., amazon coins or itunes cards), i don't think you're going to quite hit the 10+1 for an equivalent of $25. the rest of the stuff you could technically grind or wait for. like nothing says you can't just grind out Maxwell if you haven't yet, though here you'd get it as a freebie.


then there's the matter of EX Points.
if you bought the last one, you got 48 points.
this one puts you over 50, which gets you another EX Summon Ticket. worth mentioning, if you're effectively a dolphin.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

also got a new bonus for the anniversary. god we're spoiled right now.

if you complete all daily quests between 7/21 - 7/28 you'll get 100 lapis. don't know if that really means "all" or not, from what i'm seeing it's the usual complete 5 daily one that normally gave out 50 lapis. but i'll do both anyway.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

huh.
these new bundles are something.

$25:
4* ticket
ATK +30%
10 tickets
20 restore 10 NRG potions
10% trust moogle

another offer is crystallized ticket. 350 lapis for ticket + a giancryst. the cryst will change daily and today's is power.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

is there anything really happening this week? from what i remember it's basically just more story, unlocked chambers, and... that's it?

because if so then it sounds like the only thing to do is grind the fuck out of the ruggles story.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

archive links always work for me.
same wapo article.

https://archive.is/LGpy7
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

aho girl has mom of the year
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

then i'm not sure who your finisher is but they'll hit pretty hard!
though there isn't much elemental synergy there. if you include that, i'm pretty sure Firion will come out ahead. Olive is effectively locked into Lightning and there ain't many good Lightning weapons. the best is a hammer that also gives +15% HP, which is pretty nice since it'll help his tanking. hammers are also a type in his +30% ATK boost so together he should manage to come out ahead. his ease of exploiting elemental weaknesses is a huge benefit that he's got over pretty much everyone else. Rem is limited pretty heavily to Ice (Freezing Needle), water (Aqua Blade), or light (Holy Rod) so if you can't get one of those sexy -75% or -50% imperial debuffs, she won't hit as hard. Luneth i assume also has an easier time than her.

this is part of why i'm loving enhanced Ace too by the way, getting that -75% Imperial on lightning and light (and Fire, which matters even now since Rain's bonus equipment quest gave a 90 ATK fire greatsword) means both of them are crazy good. i'm considering using a DW Firion in my team too, though i gotta enhance him first. keep running out of T1 and T2.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

well yeah, EA is the nega-Cena of the industry. they'll always find a way to fail, rip the soul out of something, and leave you with a shell.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

nope, that's included. he'll hit harder on the first turn but by the third she's topping him. unsure where the 2nd would lie. with the recent change to consecutive abilities she can support without being hindered on it and you can't forget that dagger boomerang takes on both element and killers, so she won't be lagging behind him on any enemy with a certain weakness.

Olive is 2nd if you're able to consistently keep that LB going, otherwise she's still good but below a couple more.

enhanced Luneth is 1st now. what takes her 3 turns to ramp up to he can deliver immediately.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.