At 11/15/18 11:21 AM, EdyKel wrote:

If you go by that definition of assault, then what does that say about anyone who does something similar. Are you saying that Kavanaugh's accusers had a case? Or that women who accuse Trump of "grabbing them by the Pussy" have a case. You may hate CNN, but you are setting up clear definition that can be used against anyone.

It's a matter for a judge, should someone choose to pursue.

Definition is the definition.

At 11/15/18 08:18 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:
But, by the definition, his act was assault.

No, it wasn't.

At 11/15/18 11:29 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 11/15/18 11:21 AM, EdyKel wrote:

If you go by that definition of assault, then what does that say about anyone who does something similar. Are you saying that Kavanaugh's accusers had a case? Or that women who accuse Trump of "grabbing them by the Pussy" have a case. You may hate CNN, but you are setting up clear definition that can be used against anyone.

It's a matter for a judge, should someone choose to pursue.

Definition is the definition.

No, it's all subjective, even for judges. Let's not get to the point where touching a person is automatically considered assault. That is what got us to this point, where people are doubting more serious, and clear cut, cases of it. It's like the boy who cried wolf, or chicken little.

Looks like Trump is in a foul mood after the election. Not to mention his disastrous trip to France, after he was criticized for not showing up to honor fallen US troops buried in France because of rain, to Macron not so subtle jabs at Trump for his nationalistic rhetoric. Trump's been attacking Macron, Democrats, GOP who lost, the Mueller Probe, promoting conspiracy theories of voter fraud, and Theresa May. He's been busy pouting.

Strangely enough, he's been silent on the migrant caravan, after hyping the shit out of up to the midterm election.

At 11/15/18 11:48 AM, EdyKel wrote:

No, it's all subjective, even for judges. Let's not get to the point where touching a person is automatically considered assault. That is what got us to this point, where people are doubting more serious, and clear cut, cases of it. It's like the boy who cried wolf, or chicken little.

Assault is already a low bar, and he attempted to use his body to stop her from doing her job, bar met.

At 11/16/18 07:37 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 11/15/18 11:48 AM, EdyKel wrote:

Assault is already a low bar, and he attempted to use his body to stop her from doing her job, bar met.

If that's the case, well … so did she.

At 11/16/18 07:37 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:
Assault is already a low bar, and he attempted to use his body to stop her from doing her job, bar met.

The courts made a good point in their decision (which states Acosta's 1st and 5th amendment rights have been violated): before assault can be punished, Acosta needs to have a fair trial (that's a part of the fifth amendment), so no, until the courts agree it was assault, he can't be punished as if it was assault.

We can all keep arguing until the cows come home on this, but it's moot now. You are wrong, the courts are right, Acosta is legally entitled to his press pass again, so we can move on now. Let's see if the White House will break yet another law and hold itself in contempt of court and continue to refuse Acosta his rights.

At 11/16/18 07:37 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 11/15/18 11:48 AM, EdyKel wrote:

No, it's all subjective, even for judges. Let's not get to the point where touching a person is automatically considered assault. That is what got us to this point, where people are doubting more serious, and clear cut, cases of it. It's like the boy who cried wolf, or chicken little.

Assault is already a low bar, and he attempted to use his body to stop her from doing her job, bar met.

My definition of assault is something that leaves a physical mark, or it makes the person fear for their life. But if you want to treat it at such a low bar, then fine, I'll hold you that level, and If you try to weasel out of it for anything involving Trump (including past incidents), or any one that is on the right, especially if you support them, then I'll just treat you just as hypocrite.

At 11/16/18 11:10 AM, Gario wrote:

I never said Whitehouse was right to do what they did, said cnn should have removed him.

At 11/16/18 11:19 AM, EdyKel wrote:

My definition of assault is something that leaves a physical mark, or it makes the person fear for their life.

The actual definition is the latter or nearly any unwanted physical contact.

At 11/16/18 01:36 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 11/16/18 11:19 AM, EdyKel wrote:

My definition of assault is something that leaves a physical mark, or it makes the person fear for their life.

The actual definition is the latter or nearly any unwanted physical contact.

I'm sure that is what it might be, but I don't really care, I'm just going to hold you to that standard, and your support of the groper in chief.

Just popping in to say Billybob has nearly successfully changed the entire topic so that we're now talking about some stupid nebulous definition of assault rather than acknowledging that the White House stripped a reporter of their right to gather accurate information from the white house, which the courts confirmed is a violation of his first amendment rights, due to the hard questions he was asking the president.

The "assault" portion isn't relevant outside of it being an excuse to kick Acosta out, because even if there was an argument to be made (for the record, there isn't an argument to be made - the last page has been Billybob being stupid and wrong on that point) he would need to have due process prior to being stripped of his credentials. Talking about the assault detracts from the fact that the white house blatantly and glaringly fucked with his rights granted in the constitution, so let's all leave Billybob alone to wallow in his wrong-ness on that.

On the other point that CNN should fire Acosta... fire him for what, literally doing his job? Hurting Mr. 45's feelings? If Mr. 45 wasn't so monsterously incompetant at his job, he wouldn't have to deal with such tough questions later, so grow the fuck up and deal with it, preferably in a non-facist and non-authoritarian manner.

At 11/16/18 07:22 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:
Is it your life goal to wake up everyday and find some way to be a little cunt about things every one else can be an adult about.

I didn't use to - I used to be a lot more civil 'bout things, prior to 2016. But yeah, I'm actually actively calling people stupid when they consistently pull things out of their ass against common sense and basic logic, since being polite got people on the left where we are now (e.g. up shit creek). This kind of discourse is what happens when the leaders of the party (and its followers) make it a point to do the same to the left, so I'll keep going tit-for-tat.

Hey, on the bright side if you stop posting blindingly irrational things I'll give you a fair shake again.

Like I said to Edy it's just semantics to me.

And like we said, semantics for you doesn't mean it's actually just semantics - it simply means you're wrong, and you believe something that's wrong. Can't say my example with Conway was bad, since you're literally making the exact same argument as her (her argument, for the record, is wrong and stupid).

I just don't like your douchy little attitude and i'm am beyond sick of it.

Hey, for three years the left has been shit all over by the right, in an increasing manner, and y'all have been revelling in it, so obviously being polite doesn't do shit for y'all. Once y'all start to play nice (like, y'know, not sending pipe bombs to us, not hitting us with cars when we protest, not shooting up random establishments, and not stripping us of our voting rights in red states) I'll return the favor and treat you nice again.

In the meantime, your opinion is wrong and stupid, and just because YOU hold it doesn't change that fact.

At 11/16/18 08:59 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:
you guys arnt gonna start sucking each others dicks are ya?

Nah, I'd be afraid I couldn't handle someone called "SolidPantsSnake". Let's just keep it real, here.

I’m glad the point is moot, now, since you don’t have to have these discussions about sped up videos and assault-is-basically-touching-someone, over a White House video.

Especially when said video is just a distraction from the fact that Trump got upset over a reporter’s questioning.

At 11/16/18 09:42 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Y'all the rudest motherfuckers there is.

lol dude. i remember one time i posted in some thread in the VG forum, don't even remember the context, and you popped in, without ever having spoken a word to me, and called me out as a "pleb". you tried to act so matter-of-fact about it. then disappeared when i openly mocked you. i wanna pull up that interaction, it's really funny.

edit: found it. admittedly not as funny as i remember, but you were a douche, which is my point

also sometimes it seems as though you are actually breaking blood vessels while typing your rants against left-leaning members of this subforum, hurling insults, insinuations and names, all while your opponent keeps their cool. i lurk this forum a lot and i've seen it so many times from you. you can't keep your composure and a lot of your back-and-forth's eventually devolve into you acting like a kid throwing a temper tantrum.

so yeah, you calling others rude is a joke.

How stupid is Trump on wild fire? He suggests that more raking is involved in preventing them.

Not sure why California's wildfire issue is in this thread, aside from the fact that Mr. 45 is threatening to withdraw any financial support from CA (because he's an idiot and an asshole), but since it's here may as well drop my two cents.

California's fire problems are increasing, and people saying California should just "prepare better" haven't a clue how massive the issue has become since the drought. 538 has a nice report on why they've been getting worse, and yes, climate change is largely to blame, specifically the hotter average tempuratures drying out the trees and the drought doing a terrible job to replenish the forests moisture. Large fires are going to happen here, and there's little we can do about that problem.

However, we CAN withhold development in higher risk areas. This won't actually fix the fire issue, but it can reduce the loss in life and property. That's an action I'd support, personally, but with 122 million trees dead throughout the state due to the wood beetle migration epidemic (also a climate change epidemic) we're not going to make a dent in clearing it out before more fires start.

Basically, our forests are dried and ready to burn, and some right leaning people on here think clearing our forests of all the dried timber (read: every single tree in California) is actually a viable solution. It's not, though we CAN avert some loss of life and extensive property damage by not building in these areas anymore. Places that have been there for years already, though... Well, I guess they're just screwed anyway, through no fault of their own.

Kind of hard to realize how much some areas are impacted by climate change when you simply refuse it exists.

This is what much of California looks like in the summer... The bark beetle in the mountains are killing off thousands of trees because of the short winters we have are not cold enough to kill them off, and the drought we have been facing for the past decade have pretty much left things to dry out.. We are basically a tinderbox, and we don't need to have an idiot trying to score a few political points by telling us that he knows how to easily solve our problem. Even the Conservatives here are not happy about his comments.

At 11/19/18 04:35 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Someones got a chip on their shoulder over some meaningless BS. At least Gario keeps it about the politics even when he runs his mouth, that was nothing more than an out of place butthurt rant.

butthurt rants are your department. i just wanted to call you out for calling others rude, because it's laughable. carry on.

At 11/19/18 08:03 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: stuff

Let’s keep this as the last post on this topic.

At 11/19/18 09:07 AM, Zornuzkull wrote:
"We're going to have a great climate & safe forests"

Did you see the cute little 45 on his hat? I feel vindicated calling him Mr. 45 all this time - he even wears paraphernalia to support my name for him.

At 11/19/18 05:12 PM, Gario wrote:

At 11/19/18 09:07 AM, Zornuzkull wrote: "We're going to have a great climate & safe forests"

Did you see the cute little 45 on his hat? I feel vindicated calling him Mr. 45 all this time - he even wears paraphernalia to support my name for him.

I almost didn’t see it because of the army camo.

At 11/19/18 06:15 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:
i dont understand what the relevance of that number is...

He's the 45th president. My nickname must've been confusing, lol.

At 11/19/18 06:25 PM, Gario wrote:

At 11/19/18 06:15 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:
i dont understand what the relevance of that number is...

He's the 45th president. My nickname must've been confusing, lol.

He who shall not be named.

At 11/19/18 06:01 PM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

At 11/19/18 05:12 PM, Gario wrote:

At 11/19/18 09:07 AM, Zornuzkull wrote: "We're going to have a great climate & safe forests"

Did you see the cute little 45 on his hat? I feel vindicated calling him Mr. 45 all this time - he even wears paraphernalia to support my name for him.

I almost didn’t see it because of the army camo.

All is missing in that picture is a fiddle (or a gas can), and he would make a great Nero while he watches California burn.

The day he appears with a "Dotard" on his hat I'll stop badmouthing him. Promise.

At 11/20/18 10:03 AM, Sause wrote: I usually stuff these in the “trump supporters want respect” thread, but is this an actual case of modern political assassination?

I'd normally scoff at insinuations like that, but even I have to admit it's almost comical to attribute multiple blunt force wounds to "suicide". Sounds like the guy supported an initiative to lower drug prices, too, which I'm in favor of.

What a shame.

At 11/20/18 11:51 AM, Gario wrote:

At 11/20/18 10:03 AM, Sause wrote: I usually stuff these in the “trump supporters want respect” thread, but is this an actual case of modern political assassination?

I'd normally scoff at insinuations like that, but even I have to admit it's almost comical to attribute multiple blunt force wounds to "suicide". Sounds like the guy supported an initiative to lower drug prices, too, which I'm in favor of.

What a shame.

While rare, it does happen. Not enough info to come to any other conclusion.

At 11/20/18 12:37 PM, EdyKel wrote:
While rare, it does happen. Not enough info to come to any other conclusion.

Of course. It's a shame that he lost his life, was what I meant. I can understand the skepticism, too - it IS a very strange way to off yourself.

At 11/20/18 10:03 AM, Sause wrote:

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/11/ohios_daniel_best_who_led_hhs.html

The city's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner on Thursday said Best died from "multiple blunt force injuries" and it ruled his death a suicide. It would not release further information.

OK. Why is the part about how he died missing from the article now?