USPOL Oct: Trumpelthinskin's spinning wheel: spinning hot takes into gold

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Oct: Trumpelthinskin's spinning wheel: spinning hot takes into gold

«‹›1588 »

Spoke Lee: Dec 31, 2004; chairizard lol

So they were charged with conspiracy to prevent the refuge from conducting business. Bundy says that wasn't the purpose of the protest. Wouldn't them not letting the employees in to work undermine this?

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 06:30

bowser: Apr 7, 2007

Trump: It's 'big league,' not 'bigly' :ms:

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:26

Pakled: Aug 6, 2011; WE ARE SMART

Spoke Lee posted:

So they were charged with conspiracy to prevent the refuge from conducting business. Bundy says that wasn't the purpose of the protest. Wouldn't them not letting the employees in to work undermine this?

You'd think so, but the law is weird and filled with all sorts of counterintuitive caveats.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:25

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

Hollismason posted:

I also don't think this is the last Bundy trial.

Cliven is absolutely, positively not going to get away with it.

Hopefully Ammon gets pinged by state law.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:27

Ratoslov: Feb 15, 2012; Now prepare yourselves! You're the guests of honor at the Greatest Kung Fu Cannibal BBQ Ever!

Spoke Lee posted:

So they were charged with conspiracy to prevent the refuge from conducting business. Bundy says that wasn't the purpose of the protest. Wouldn't them not letting the employees in to work undermine this?

Apparently the Bureau of Land Management decided when their office was occupied by gun-wielding lunatics that their employees did not have to go to work that day, and did not even attempt to send anyone to visit the location. So it is not an entirely tortured interpretation of the law to say that they were not, in fact, preventing them from working because they never stopped any employees from entering the worksite. It's merely mostly-tortured.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:39

FUCK SNEEP: Apr 21, 2007

cult member at airport posted:

Trump: It's 'big league,' not 'bigly'

People actually thought he was saying bigly??

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:42

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

gently caress SNEEP posted:

People actually thought he was saying bigly??

He was saying bigly.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:44

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Ratoslov posted:

Apparently the Bureau of Land Management decided when their office was occupied by gun-wielding lunatics that their employees did not have to go to work that day, and did not even attempt to send anyone to visit the location. So it is not an entirely tortured interpretation of the law to say that they were not, in fact, preventing them from working because they never stopped any employees from entering the worksite. It's merely mostly-tortured.

I'd like the explanation on how BLM employees could not reasonably interpret the presence of heavily armed anti-BLM protestors with avowed eagerness to shoot Federal employees to be a threat to their persons. Like I'm sure there is one, but I wanna hear it.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:43

tezcat: Jan 1, 2005

Shbobdb posted:

Did anyone ever made a gif of that cop going full Terminator on dude's window when he said, "No officer, I wasn't driving. I was traveling."

?

This one? https://youtu.be/QCozh_vbYdM

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:46

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

Bip Roberts posted:

He was saying bigly.

You could hear the G if you listened carefully

But it was subtle

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:46

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

Nessus posted:

I'd like the explanation on how BLM employees could not reasonably interpret the presence of heavily armed anti-BLM protestors with avowed eagerness to shoot Federal employees to be a threat to their persons. Like I'm sure there is one, but I wanna hear it.

I honestly and fully believe that the Bundy crew wouldn't have shot at the BLM employees attempting to return to work (they would have stopped them from entering, though)

Any law enforcement would have been a different story

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:48

bowser: Apr 7, 2007

Anyone wanna take a crack at this analysis of the Bundy case:

quote:

Okay, we don't know why the jury acquitted them, let's all recognize that up front. Guessing at why the jury did what they did would be rank speculation. It could be that the government screwed up the case or evidence, or that they jury didn't understand the charges, or that a juror or two was biased, or probably a hundred other reasons...
That being said, let me engage in some rank speculation. I remember reading a week ago that the government had at least 15 "confidential sources" feeding them information from the refuge. The government refused to identify most of them. The defense made the informants a significant part of their strategy:

Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford is urging the court to compel prosecutors to identify their informants before the defense rests its case in the federal conspiracy trial against his client and six co-defendants.
"We're being prosecuted based on the collective actions of others,'' Mumford argued.

The court refused to compel the government to identify them; it only said that the prosecutors would have to come forward if any informant testified in a way that they knew to be false. I thought it was a very inequitable ruling by the court. The idea that the government can withhold a number of material witnesses from the defense, while the defense was asserting that they were involved in the very crimes charged against defendants, is very distasteful.

The defense ended up identifying three of the informants and getting one on the stand, even after prosecutors refused to confirm that they were actually informants. The one who got on the stand testified that he had spent 20 years in the Swiss military and was trained in "psyops":
Killman, defense lawyer Tiffany Harris pointed out in a written legal brief, was a participant in the firearms and military-style maneuvers training during the occupation and helped train one of the defendants, Jeff Banta, in hand-to-hand combat techniques.

He spoke with a French or South African accent to people at the refuge and his Facebook profile included a majority of friends who occupied the refuge, according to defense lawyers. Defense investigators learned Minoggio was born in Switzerland and had served in the Swiss army for 20 years. He was trained in "psy-ops,'' weaponry and martial arts, according to Harris' legal brief.

"We are dealing here with a situation of a confidential informant who is participating in the commission of the alleged offense,'' defense lawyer Marcus Mumford said in court.
Earlier Monday, prosecutors had refused to confirm if the man who went by "Mr. Killman'' was working for the government.
Defense lawyers, he said, don't know what these confidential sources "did or how they contributed'' to the alleged conspiracy during the 41-day armed takeover of the federal bird sanctuary in eastern Oregon.

He further testified that he had conducted firearms training and essentially encouraged the occupiers throughout the ordeal. At the same time, the defense charged that it was one of these informants who actually brought the weapons to the refuge:
Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, who represents defendant Kenneth Medenbach, argued that the defense team had the right to know who the "mystery people'' were who brought the 22 long guns and 12 handguns to the refuge that prosecutors had FBI agents parade before jurors. Schindler pointed out that prosecutors and the FBI didn't identify who brought most the guns.

Remember, the occupiers were charged with possessing a firearm in a government facility and conspiring to impede F&WS and BLM officials with intimidation. The defense had a reasonable case that the government agents were involved with the crimes, if not instigating the crimes themselves. And it refused to either tell the jury the whole truth or rebut those claims.

I can't think of a reason why the jury would reject the factual allegations of the government. After all, they literally broadcasted most of the crimes contemporaneously. The only explanation I can come up with (admittedly, with about half an hour of thought) is that the jury nullified because it didn't find the government actions fair or credible. That may not be fair -- I certainly don't think it would happen if the defendants were minorities -- but that's a risk that the government takes when it asks the jury to trust it out of one side of its face, then refuses to give the jury important information with the other.

I'm suspicious of it because it's from reddit but it sounds somewhat reasonable.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:50

predicto: Jul 22, 2004; THE DEM DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON

iospace posted:

https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/791816935738601472

and 25 million of that was from Sheldon Adelson

# ? Oct 28, 2016 06:59

Tricky D: Apr 1, 2005; I love um!

Nessus posted:

I'd like the explanation on how BLM employees could not reasonably interpret the presence of heavily armed anti-BLM protestors with avowed eagerness to shoot Federal employees to be a threat to their persons. Like I'm sure there is one, but I wanna hear it.

Perhaps there were no BLM employees that could testify to being threatened since, apparently, they never attempted to go to work during the stand off.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:00

berserker: Aug 17, 2003; My love for you
is ticking clock

My hot take: bigly or big league, the way Trump uses it is still loving improper English

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:21

goethe.cx: Apr 23, 2014

Trump mostly uses real words even if it is complete Markov chain word salad. Bigly sounds more like a Bushism imo

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:21

freckle: Apr 6, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

Koyaanisgoatse posted:

Trump mostly uses real words even if it is complete Markov chain word salad. Bigly sounds more like a Bushism imo

Bigly is a real and perfectly cromulent word.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:24

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Tricky D posted:

Perhaps there were no BLM employees that could testify to being threatened since, apparently, they never attempted to go to work during the stand off.

You see on the news that there's guys with guns at your job, from a group with a history of hating SA Forums Posters whose usernames begin with T. Your boss calls, and since he's a goon too, he knows what's up and tells you you can work from home.

How were you not threatened? Obviously this could be taken to extremes, but this makes it sound like it doesn't count as "having been threatened" - even if you are in a specific group - unless you physically confront the threatening parties.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:30

D O R K Y: Sep 1, 2001

Why couldn't Dilbert have been deemed a hate symbol instead?

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:29

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Gyges posted:

The Natural Born Citizen clause was a gently caress you to Alexander Hamilton, and also there to save the fragile nation from the evils of French and English sleeper agents.

Was he not a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" or something? Because I hear this claim bandied about all the time, and I'm pretty sure it's bullshit under the premise that Hamilton was always grandfathered in under the second part of that clause.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:31

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Kro-Bar posted:

I like seeing the Baldwins gang up on Stephen. He must sit at the kid's table at Thanksgiving.

https://twitter.com/BrandonSmith85/status/791824688091717633

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kjyltrKZSY&t=373s

If you don't know it already and it doesn't play at that part, it's at 6:10 in...

The Baldwins' problem with Stephen is that he believes these things, it's that he takes them along with him to family events. I remember Alec Baldwin speaking on Conan or something about being at a family get-together with Stephen, and Stephen ranted to him that he'd let his own daughter be decaptiated by ISIS that renounce her Christianity and he was proud of it.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:32

Casimir Radon: Aug 2, 2008

Stephen Baldwin got a tattoo of the letters "HM" for "Hannah Montana" because he made a pact with Miley Cyrus that he could be on the show if he got it. He never got to be on the show, and now regrets the tattoo. I kind of wonder if the pact is really just him being an unreliable narrator, and it's all some bizarre magical thinking on his part.

"What's that Jesus? You want me to shoot Ronald Reagan so ~~senpai~~ Miley will notice me? Ok, you're the best best friend any guy has ever had, and have led me to anything less than success!"

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:43

freckle: Apr 6, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

Casimir Radon posted:

Stephen Baldwin got a tattoo of the letters "HM" for "Hannah Montana" because he made a pact with Miley Cyrus that he could be on the show if he got it. He never got to be on the show, and now regrets the tattoo. I kind of wonder if the pact is really just him being an unreliable narrator, and it's all some bizarre magical thinking on his part.

"What's that Jesus? You want me to shoot Ronald Reagan so ~~senpai~~ Miley will notice me? Ok, you're the best best friend any guy has ever had, and have led me to anything less than success!"

I don't understand how he turned out so different from the rest of his family.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 07:53

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

freckle posted:

I don't understand how he turned out so different from the rest of his family.

There was a mixup and he's actually Adam Baldwin's brother.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 08:07

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv0MXhgLgXQ&t=3200s

While catching up to McMuffin at the Texas Tribune fest, I noticed this in the Q&A: It's the most articulated explanation from a candidate about why Donald Trump will easily blow past Congress and the Supreme Court and pose an authoritarian threat to the United States.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 08:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Nessus posted:

You see on the news that there's guys with guns at your job, from a group with a history of hating SA Forums Posters whose usernames begin with T. Your boss calls, and since he's a goon too, he knows what's up and tells you you can work from home.

How were you not threatened? Obviously this could be taken to extremes, but this makes it sound like it doesn't count as "having been threatened" - even if you are in a specific group - unless you physically confront the threatening parties.

I don't think the occupiers ever explicitly threatened any of the employees should they return to work, and getting a charge to stick on It's Always Sunny "because of the implication" grounds is a tough row to hoe, legally speaking.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 08:31

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

Wikkheiser posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv0MXhgLgXQ&t=3200s

While catching up to McMuffin at the Texas Tribune fest, I noticed this in the Q&A: It's the most articulated explanation from a candidate about why Donald Trump will easily blow past Congress and the Supreme Court and pose an authoritarian threat to the United States.

His last answer about Johnson is pretty brutal too.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 08:56

cant cook creole bream: Aug 15, 2011; I think Fahrenheit is better for weather

Wikkheiser posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv0MXhgLgXQ&t=3200s

While catching up to McMuffin at the Texas Tribune fest, I noticed this in the Q&A: It's the most articulated explanation from a candidate about why Donald Trump will easily blow past Congress and the Supreme Court and pose an authoritarian threat to the United States.

I'm starting to like this guy. And that's not good.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 08:59

Sulphagnist: Oct 10, 2006; WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

A legal and prosecutorial standard where an armed mob of white men taking over your workplace is not actually an actionable threat is an idiotic one.

I guess next time the Feds should light them up. That's basically the takeaway here.

Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Oct 28, 2016

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:01

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

cant cook creole bream posted:

I'm starting to like this guy. And that's not good.

He's essentially a normal Republican whose only saving grace is that he believes climate change exists. I'm sure he's a likable person, but he's by no means a likable politician.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:01

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Nichael posted:

He's essentially a normal Republican whose only saving grace is that he believes climate change exists. I'm sure he's a likable person, but he's by no means a likable politician.

So basically he's the new John Huntsman.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:05

PupsOfWar: Dec 6, 2013

cant cook creole bream posted:

I'm starting to like this guy. And that's not good.

I'm sure he did plenty of shady things in the CIA

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:10

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

lozzle posted:

So basically he's the new John Huntsman.

Pretty much, yeah. I think the world would be a better place if his kind were running the Republican party instead of whatever the gently caress Trump's supporters are, but I don't think they actually have good ideas. They're dangerous in their own right.

I think Clinton should be glad that "reasonable" Republicans (or those who are able to masquerade as such) don't run the party because they could easily lead us back to the Bush years with a little charm and a lot less pussy grabbing.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:11

Lyndon LaRouche: Sep 5, 2006; by Azathoth

cant cook creole bream posted:

I'm starting to like this guy. And that's not good.

Modern Republicans have become so loving awful that a Republican in the traditional mold actually sounds halfway reasonable these days. Did they really have any shred of intellectual consistency back in the day or am I just too young to know any better?

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

So how indirect do my statements need to be if I show up armed to a bank for it not to be armed robbery when the teller hands me all the money in the till "because of the implication". Asking for a friend.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Oct 28, 2016

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Antti posted:

A legal and prosecutorial standard where an armed mob of white men taking over your workplace is not actually an actionable threat is an idiotic one.

Hang on, I've been saving something for this occasion:

I know there is a not-insignificant fraction of posters who feel that "people having guns" should constitute an actionable threat by anyone who sees it, but I don't think there is any U.S. state that currently recognizes it as such absent an overt or articulated threat.

VitalSigns posted:

So how indirect do my statements need to be if I show up armed to a bank for it not to be armed robbery when the teller hands me all the money in the till "because of the implication". Asking for a friend.

Well, a bank lobby isn't public land, so they can ask you to leave for violating their "no guns or ski masks" policy, and call the police if you don't. Depending on what state you are in, entering a bank while armed may already be a crime.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Oct 28, 2016

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:13

cant cook creole bream: Aug 15, 2011; I think Fahrenheit is better for weather

VitalSigns posted:

So how indirect do my statements need to be if I show up armed to a bank for it not to be armed robbery when the teller hands me all the money in the till "because of the implication". Asking for a friend.

Ask them if they want to go on a boat with you.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:14

Nichael: Mar 30, 2011

paperwind posted:

Modern Republicans have become so loving awful that a Republican in the traditional mold actually sounds halfway reasonable these days. Did they really have any shred of intellectual consistency back in the day or am I just too young to know any better?

The bar now for "reasonable" is "don't post on Twitter all day about sending Jews to the ovens or killing all Muslims." If a Republican manages to not do that, they're a god drat statesman.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:14

canepazzo: May 29, 2006

https://twitter.com/TPM/status/791912904471810048

quote:

House GOP's campaign arm runs ad praising Rep. Bob Dold for saying that Trump has "disqualified" himself http://bit.ly/2dQaM6K

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 06:30

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't think the occupiers ever explicitly threatened any of the employees should they return to work, and getting a charge to stick on It's Always Sunny "because of the implication" grounds is a tough row to hoe, legally speaking.

OK, so at what point does the armed group of wannabe rebels become an actual threat? Like, is there an actual legal point where that happens? Because I know for drat sure the cops get to shoot people all the time on the grounds that their responsibility is to come home safely and the lives of random citizens are less important than that feeling of safety.

# ? Oct 28, 2016 09:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Oct: Trumpelthinskin's spinning wheel: spinning hot takes into gold

«‹›1588 »