CatBus

Collipso said:

Mrebo said:

Pitiable story of 21 year old neo-Nazi and how his mother deals with it.

Oh my god. I almost cried.

In that scenario, I would at the very least ask law enforcement to advise me how to legally wiretap my own house so that when it comes down to it (and I regret to suggest it will), I may be able to prevent a crime, provide useful evidence to the prosecution, and/or avoid implication in the crime myself. If one of her rescue dogs was a known biter, she wouldn’t let it walk around off-leash. Sorry for the harsh metaphor, but it’s apt. If you can’t fit it with a muzzle, keep a very close eye on it or you really will be to blame when it kills someone. She’s very lucky indeed to think that (for all she knows) she’s the only parent left bereft because of what her son has become, and she will need to work hard if she wants to keep it that way.

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Then I don’t really get your point. If suicides are most gun deaths, then shouldn’t these statistics apply to gun deaths too? I don’t just want a solution for mass shootings. We should want one for other gun problems too.

That is a question. That’s why I pointed out that states with assault weapon bans appear to highly correlate to lower gun deaths and yet I don’t think many suicides (which comprise most gun deaths) are committed with assault weapons. So…maybe something else is going on with these numbers.

I’m with you here. First off, take state-by-state numbers with a huge grain of salt in general. Open borders mean local gun laws have less relevance. I know Alaska and Wyoming have ridiculous suicide rates and lax gun laws. Loosely related maybe, but there’s a whole lot else that feeds into suicide rates. If you just look at Alaska’s native population, for example, the suicide rate gets much worse. Lack of jobs, education, prospects for the future, plus a nighttime that lasts 30 days.

And I question whether many people who commit suicide by firearm will choose to live if they don’t have a gun to kill themselves with. That sounds very doubtful to me.

You’d be surprised how well those seemingly dumb suicide barriers on bridges work. They don’t help everyone, certainly, or even most people. But making suicide just a little bit harder is sometimes just enough to get people to look around at their other options. And not just their other options for means of suicide.

Mrebo said:

As for harm reduction, a gun ban is unrealistic and sacrifices basic liberties (whether you think those liberties are outmoded or rarely needed).

In my opinion, nobody would sacrifice anything important at all under a gun ban. They wouldn’t even be inconvenienced. But yes I agree it’s currently unrealistic.

It’s like the ‘free range’ parenting topic, where charging parents with negligence is about harm reduction.

Except no harm is actually reduced and people are actually harmed, making it sort of the opposite of a gun ban.

What if we could put a virtual end to school shootings without a gun ban? Do we even want to try that?

School shootings are a very tiny subset of the larger American gun problem, which is large and will take a long time to address, and there may be a very different political climate before the whole problem is solved. So while solutions that can pass a legislature are preferred in the near term, I don’t feel we should feel obligated to be silent about solutions that solve the problem more effectively without as many downsides, just because they’re currently unpassable.

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!

Okay, why don’t you start? What sort of failings?

They’ve been in the news and I’ve mentioned them previously in the thread. But there were the calls to the FBI, including a post by Cruz that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter.” He was expelled from school because he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he was deeply troubled, knew he had guns (but apparently not how many and where). Kids at school were afraid of him. People knew he tortured and killed animals. Numerous police and social service visits to the house with no actions taken. The deputy working at the school that day stayed outside when the shooting was going on.

But if he hadn’t had a gun, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now. We would be talking about Trump’s claim that he is, in fact, one-fourth Chinese.

Setting aside the practicality of gun bans, if he didn’t have a rifle, I don’t see why he wouldn’t use a handgun, and if not a handgun, a knife or an explosive device. And then maybe we could talk about how we could stop him from killing whatever number of people he killed. Would it be only 5 dead children? Maybe. We can only guess. There’s a sleight of hand going on here and it’s not by me. If you think this kid only killed people because he had a gun you’re ignoring all those facts, strangely because they’re not controversial.

Of course he had the desire to kill because of all these factors — where did I ever doubt that? Making the process more efficient at catching those at risk is part of the guns debate.

Didn’t mean to respond to your post.

But restricting access to guns makes sense.

The total gun ban idea is unrealistic and wrongheaded.

And for the millionth time, a total gun ban is not the objective. Go back and look at the Australian law posted a couple pages back - that’s the ideal objective we should be working toward IMO.

Yep, I think I’ve been pushing the envelope of the most restrictive regulation possible here, and even I’m not in favor of a total gun ban. And, as we discussed about 30 pages back or so, I’d support policies that aren’t nearly as aggressive as the ones I’m suggesting. I’m just bringing it up because why not give your honest opinion?

Mrebo said:

If you think this kid only killed people because he had a gun

Add the word “seventeen” and you’re on to something. Harm reduction is the concept behind the whole thing. The only one actually fighting against evil is Batman.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I guess that Hawaii is the exception that proves the rule.

Actually there were some other statistics a while back that used gun ownership rates per household rather than per adult and Hawaii ranked pretty low on that one. I’m not exactly sure how they calculated household though, so that would be something to look into. Part of the weirdness about gun stats is that the rate of gun ownership is trending downward at the same time the number of guns is going up, because while fewer people have guns, those that have them have more of them.

Fake Math!

Foiled again!

TV’s Frink said:

I guess that Hawaii is the exception that proves the rule.

Actually there were some other statistics a while back that used gun ownership rates per household rather than per adult and Hawaii ranked pretty low on that one. I’m not exactly sure how they calculated household though, so that would be something to look into. Part of the weirdness about gun stats is that the rate of gun ownership is trending downward at the same time the number of guns is going up, because while fewer people have guns, those that have them have more of them.

Mrebo said:

In light of the foregoing responses, I still don’t buy the attempt at turning this into a simple math problem.

Math is not offended when you ignore it.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose over its entire lifetime.
2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

The setup is flawed.

1. The existence of instances of self defense are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I think we’re talking past each other here. Buying a gun increases your risk of danger more than it increases your safety. Buying a gun makes you overall less safe which moots the safety justification.

2. Relatedly, if law abiding citizens were disarmed they would likely be at greater risk of violence.

That’s not true at all. Burglars are more likely to steal from houses if they know there’s guns in the house. By buying the gun, you’re increasing your risk of becoming a crime victim, which could lead to violence.

3. Some people are at greater risk of needing self defense than others.

That is true. And some people endanger their loved ones more than others. On average, the rate is just over 40x different, that’s all.

4. I imagine most of #3 are suicides. Followed by murders of supposed loved ones.

Suicides, accidents, murders, burglars who break into your house to steal your guns because you posted a helpful “Protected by Smith & Wesson” sign outside to advertise the fact, and then they shoot you when you interrupt the burglary.

We can speculate on the effect there if handguns were banned, but doesnt negate a need for self defense.

As long as you recognize that the need for self-defense is inextricably tied to a much stronger need to pretend you’re not actually endangering the lives of your loved ones, we’re in agreement.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose.
2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

Although I’m sure people who use self-defense as a justification would have no problem coming up with lots of reasons they and all their friends and family must be freakish statistical outliers without actually having to consider the possibility that maybe they aren’t.

Australia got the convicts, we got the Puritans. And that’s why they yelled “No tradebacks, mate!”

TV’s Frink said:

Why does God have to be a “He” anyway?

Lazy sexist, was lazy.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

If I could prove my experiences by replicating them in a controlled environment? If He wanted me to be able to do that, I could do it. But that’s up to Him, not me.

It was more of a rhetorical question, doubting Thomas and all that. That fact that it can’t be proven gives value to faith. With proof, faith changes character completely and is merely reason extended to a new field.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument.

No, it’s more like… The bigger my understanding of the world/universe gets, the bigger God gets. It’s kind of like the Narnia book series, where Lucy remarks to Aslan that he is bigger than before. He responds by saying that she is getting bigger (or older) and so in response he looks bigger to her each time she meets him.

It’s all about perspective. When I look at nature or science, I don’t fill in the gaps of my understanding with “God did it.” I marvel at God’s creation. It’s kind of like looking at a painting and it making you think of the artist who made it. Learning about the universe, about science and art and nature, helps me learn more about God. About who He is and what he’s truly like.

Additionally, I do have personal experiences on which to draw that undeniably to me prove the existence, presence, and intimacy of God. I have had personal encounters with him and have physically felt his presence. I knew it was Him. I can not explain these experiences to you in an irrefutable way. At the end of the day you would have to judge the testimonies of myself and other people involved. Thus my experiences are not scientifically provable, nor intentionally repeatable (even suggesting trying that sounds horribly arrogant to me).

What value is faith if you could prove it?

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.

…how do you know that?

Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?

Yes, your second question.

Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.

To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.

How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.

Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.

I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.

That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.

I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.

If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument. There are gaps in human understanding – they change over time, but there are always gaps. Once, God made it rain, now we understand more about weather and he doesn’t (anyone seen Gene Wilder’s “God Does Not Make It Rain!” monologue from The Frisco Kid?). To an atheist-inclined person, God’s shrinking role is more proof that he’s never been there at all. To a religiously-inclined person, the gaps that have persisted through the ages point to the existence of God, as it does in Wilder’s monologue.

But they’re just gaps. They are only rightly filled with “I don’t know”. Which means they are just the blank canvas onto which we paint our own desires. If we want science to fill them, we say science will fill them, even if we don’t know it will (Heisenberg demonstrated science does not have the capacity to fill every gap). If we want God to fill them, look, there he is. Gaps neither prove nor disprove either side.

I suppose you can’t be deemed a useful idiot until you’ve first proven yourself as an idiot.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/how-manaforts-inability-to-convert-a-word-doc-to-pdf-helped-prosecutors/

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

From the new Manafort/Gates indictments:

In total, more than $75,000,000 flowed through the offshore accounts. MANAFORT, with the assistance of GATES, laundered more than $30,000,000, income that he concealed from the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Department of Justice, and others. GATES obtained more than $3,000,000 from the offshore accounts, income that he too concealed from the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and others.

For those of you wondering when we were going to stop seeing these “carrot” indictments (one count of lying to investigators, etc), this is a “stick” indictment for sure.

I kinda like the voiceover concept, as it preserves the original actors’ performances, and doesn’t even try to “perform” the part, just translates like a… well, like a translator would. I like the way the Polish one sounds, although I think that was done on a much better budget in the nineties. I imagine some low-budget, unofficial, garage voiceover might not have quite the same quality. And also voiceovers are just weird, whether or not I like them.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. So now we finally see the sort of indictment Mueller hands out to people who are not cooperating with the investigation, and ouch. So Manafort gets the choice: flip, rot in the pen, or force a nasty constitutional endgame that makes Trump look guilty as hell right as the election season is heating up?

Knowing how much Trump cares about other human beings, and how much Kool-Aid Manafort’s drunk, my money’s on #2.

Manafort’s misdeeds took place 2006-2015. It’s a long way from having anything to do with Trump.

What Manafort’s been charged with stems from that period. The timeframe of the leverage doesn’t have to match the timeframe of the information you’re trying to get. And Manafort doesn’t have to flip on Trump, he could flip on people even closer to Trump (his lawyer, his son-in-law). Mueller’s definitely going after this the way you go after organized crime. Lawyers are flipped, attorney-client privilege is invalidated.

To say he could flip assumes there is anything to flip on.

To say he’s been charged with 32 counts of financial crimes assumes he’s not a completely ethical person. Maybe he’ll go to trial and prove himself innocent. And maybe there’s nothing to flip on. I’m giving the same odds on both.

Correction: the indictment includes financial crimes by Manafort as recently as January 2017.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. So now we finally see the sort of indictment Mueller hands out to people who are not cooperating with the investigation, and ouch. So Manafort gets the choice: flip, rot in the pen, or force a nasty constitutional endgame that makes Trump look guilty as hell right as the election season is heating up?

Knowing how much Trump cares about other human beings, and how much Kool-Aid Manafort’s drunk, my money’s on #2.

Manafort’s misdeeds took place 2006-2015. It’s a long way from having anything to do with Trump.

What Manafort’s been charged with stems from that period. The timeframe of the leverage doesn’t have to match the timeframe of the information you’re trying to get. And Manafort doesn’t have to flip on Trump, he could flip on people even closer to Trump (his lawyer, his son-in-law). Mueller’s definitely going after this the way you go after organized crime. Lawyers are flipped, attorney-client privilege is invalidated.

To say he could flip assumes there is anything to flip on.

To say he’s been charged with 32 counts of financial crimes assumes he’s not a completely ethical person. Maybe he’ll go to trial and prove himself innocent. And maybe there’s nothing to flip on. I’m giving the same odds on both.

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. Flip, rot in the pen,

I’m not sure if he’d rot. He’d probably be sent to a nice, white-collar prison.

Consider how hard he’s fighting house arrest. It’s hard to be a Russian asset under any sort of close supervision.

Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. So now we finally see the sort of indictment Mueller hands out to people who are not cooperating with the investigation, and ouch. So Manafort gets the choice: flip, rot in the pen, or force a nasty constitutional endgame that makes Trump look guilty as hell right as the election season is heating up?

Knowing how much Trump cares about other human beings, and how much Kool-Aid Manafort’s drunk, my money’s on #2.

darth_ender said:

For what it’s worth, this forum takes too much of my time and energy. I know the regulars here will criticize me for what I’m about to do. I know that two years from now, someone will say something like, “Remember when darth_ender took his ball and went home?” Regardless, I think I should just give greater energy to real life and stop wasting it trying to be friends with Internet people, especially people who really don’t care. Overall, it’s been a pleasant seven-ish years, people. I’m sure I’ll continue to read the threads I care about. I am just going to log out on all my devices and don’t intend to log back in much if ever again. Thank you for the enjoyable interactions. I mean that sincerely.

I appreciate the time suck, and prioritizing real life over Internet people. But dammit.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh my god.

It’s like if you guys had to define for me what a television is.

Wait. Are you telling us you’re not Tuvalu’s Frink? You’re Television’s Frink?!?

I’m not telling you anything.

Well then I’ll keep imagining you in a grass skirt.

Damn I’m sexy.

Well that’s ruined. Now I’m imagining something safer: you arriving at the door wearing a tool belt, to fix the cable.