Spoopy Scary

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Feel free to add to the discussion we were just having.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

No. What happened was. I was told I can't troll people. Which came from a single sarcastic sentence, with an indication that it was separate from the rest. I made it clear, that was all it was. My warning was only about that (and me not solving the issue via PM.) and it also was for everyone, not just me, according to NuttsnBolts.

So, I don't think my responses we're uncalled for, I didn't name call, I didn't even curse, (I even apologized.) And I was replying two things directed toward me. I even gave myself a grace period to show I wasn't eager to stir up trouble. I'm merely clearing up misunderstandings.

@Dynamo Frokane And since this thread is healthy and all, how about some political discourse? I posted several examples of such, I'd be willing to chat about.

@SleepingSilence

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Take a step back then. It won't do you any good to keep posting in the thread, and it won't look good on you if you only criticize some of the participants instead of talking about the subject. We don't want to become part of the problem, after all!

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I just don't get why so many people here are so angry and rude. Take a long look at yourselves, dudes.

<Snipped quote by Spoopy Scary>

Let's apply that same standard to the Trump campaign. What's your definitive conclusion there?

Remember, Manafort, the Trump guy they're needling for foreign involvement, is currently indicted for activities he undertook on behalf of the Ukraine, during his time with Podesta Group -- Podesta, as in Hillary's campaign manager.

EDIT: as an aside, everything I just linked is a matter of record. Some of it, like Uranium One, we're still waiting o more info, but the part of the story we've got on record so far is very damning. You should definitely look into these things on your own time. I haven't even touched the conspiracy theories, credible (Seth Rich) or otherwise (comet ping pong)

@mdk

The conclusion, as said on page 186, is that one of his officials has a solid, tangible link to Russian influence on the election via confession. I never claimed anything else. That has dire implications, yes, but I never suggested anything else.

The Podesta point is interesting. I'm reading into it, and admittedly, there's not a whole lot that I understand about the subject. What I do know, though, is that Podesta as a whole is not Hillary's campaign manager. John Podesta is, and he is one of its two founders along with his brother, Anthony. Beyond that, I don't know how linked the two are. I don't know if there is enough information available yet to figure out if the work Manafort did was truly on behalf of Podesta Group, or if Manafort was doing a side-project of his own as he got into contact with Ukraine officials through Podesta - and only God knows how many other variables in the situation in which I am honestly not qualified to talk about. Only thing I can say is that, yes, there's a web of interconnected individuals involved. As politicians, it's expected that they have some foreign ties as they talk business and politics with foreign powers. As for how many of them were able to keep them separated from our election and domestic politics is, I think, the real question.

TL;DR, Jesus-fucking-Christ, I don't know. Things get complicated when you have an establishment candidate and a corporate gangster try to compete with each other. There are too many opinions in the news to get a sense of what's up and what's down.

No comment of a mass shooting going on at a Texas church here? Nothing on how November 4th was forced to fizzle or Senator Rand Paul being assaulted by violent leftist neighbor, and not even a word of all the Saudi princes who got pinched on corruption charges, to include one who was notorious for taunting President Donald Trump and being the subject of terrorism investigations there? Color me unsurprised.

Regardless, time to focus on what is known in addition to initial information gathered.

The situation that occurred in Sutherland Springs, Texas was a shooter, in all black and tactical equipment, who barged into a church this Sunday some time after eleven in the morning and killed 27 of the congregation. The attacker, identified as David Patrick Kelley was a dishonorably discharged member from the United States Air Force, found guilty of assaulting his wife and his child in court martial, barred from owning or purchasing firearms, demoted to the rank of Airman Basic, and had served a year in confinement.

Currently, the motive is unclear but intelligence gathered suggests it was ideological, potentially political as well; his Facebook had ties to many athiest groups and a few "RESIST" movements as well as the following statement by a group called "TOGETHER WE RISE", which Kelley was a part of:

Group Page Information

<Snipped quote>

The weapon used, according to information as it is now, was an AR-15 style Ruger rifle, which had been customized by the attacker (perhaps to more closely resemble the M4 rifle used by the Air Force). However, the active shooter was interrupted and forced to flee - potentially suffering a mortal injury in the process - when a neighbor to the church heard the shooting and retrieved his own rifle and fired upon him. The armed citizen then harassed and forced Kelley to flee by continued shooting.

Kelley is confirmed dead by law enforcement, but the investigation has escalated further, now into the hands of federal investigation.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Bro, it's alright. Some of us work. Some of us don't turn on the TV every day. Some of us prefer to listen to music as they drive. It's all OK. Not everyone knows the news as soon as it happens.

That said, I did hear about the Texas shooting today. Apparently he was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child, tried to bribe an under-aged girl into dating him... and he could still legally buy guns. I'm not sure what allowed that, honestly. Our laws, as I think they are stated now, should've prevented that from happening. But the enforcement of those laws may have been lacking. IDK. I'm too burned out of politics to really look it up and talk too much about it at the moment.

Only heard mention of the Saudi princes and Rand Paul's assault. Some people are just shitty? Don't know what to tell you, man.

Post Your Pikcha

Got it working now, I think. My internet is so slow today RIP

Edit: On a different note, I got my first pair of glasses today. Reaction below.

Hider

Post Your Pikcha

<Snipped quote by ONL>

That is MY bachelor's degree. You better give it back.

@Sigurd

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I'll get back to you on that. Not sure when, though. It's sleepy time and I will be working all weekend, so I have no promises that I'll even remember! Lol

<Snipped quote>
Excuse me? With Overton window shift to suit your own horrible definition, maybe, but otherwise you're wrong. At most it's economically slightly right, but stop going with "they disagree so haha it don't count!"

@Andreyich

????????

Post Your Pikcha

That moment when you realise that babies aren't that bad..

Wish I was a father.

@Chasebloodcrest

Bro, if you do become a father, do me a favor: on Halloween, wear a white shirt with a bunch of "blood stains" on the center of your chest. Wear one of those front-facing baby pouches for the baby to ride in. Give the baby an alien xenomorph lookin' hat. Bam. Chest-burster. Everyone will love it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

So, to begin, let me just put out a disclaimer: I've been a little out of the loop lately, so I might not be right in the end and I'm okay with that. I'm always ready to learn. That being said, some of the sources you have cited aren't credible. There might be inklings of truth in some of them, but if they aren't honest or objective from the get-go, I can't be certain what is true and what is not without in-depth research and that's not the kind of time I want to be spending for a political conversation with a stranger on a roleplaying forum.

• The Medium article you cited has been using coded or outright biased language in order to persuade the reader toward a certain conclusion (e.g. "...we have known about these facts since they emerged from Clapper’s racist face hole on May 8..."), so to save time, I'm gonna outright ignore it. Which might mean I'll miss out on some truth, but for all I know, it could also be all croc... and that's speaking as a liberal about a left-leaning website.
• The Daily Caller, has a history of right-heavy bias and sensationalist headlines, so nope. But hey, kudos to you for being diverse and nonpartisan in your source picking.

And a bunch of the other articles either don't relate to or support the theory of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign (or her 2008 campaign, as far as I can tell). Like those donations to the Clinton Foundation which were outside of the nation's election periods can't possibly have any strong link to either campaign - and it doesn't matter in this case that she took and kept money by a sexual offender, and that's speaking as a survivor myself. By no means am I defending Clinton as an ethical person or her Foundation as an ethical organization, but those sources don't support your claim of foreign involvement in this last election season.

The best article you've given is the one by The Hill where the Clinton campaign apparently colluded with Ukraine officials. The Hill being a good, solid source. My only problem is that there are few other sources with the same credibility supporting the same story without bias, so I have to be open to the possibility that it may not be true or that I am not getting all of the information about Ukraine's involvement.

In the case where I'm wrong, I stand corrected and thank you for bringing that information to my attention. But otherwise, there is a lot of misleading information in your case which leads me to wonder if you have your own bias in simply wanting to see Clinton fail.

Like I said, I have no love for the former Secretary of State or the DNC. And yes, Clinton carries with her a metric SHIT-TON of baggage that looks very damning and can easily lead someone to some conclusions... but among it, there simply isn't enough hard proof of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign for me to settle on a definitive conclusion.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Spoopy Scary>

any so-called centrists wanna correct this while I'm at work? Spoopy, someone is not giving you the whole story. Stay tuned. You're gonna be disgusted.

@mdk

That's not gonna happen, because so far the only confirmed information is that the DNC handed its control to the Clinton campaign a year before the primary elections and anything more than that is conjecture or conspiracy theory.