News DOJ asks for 7 to 9 for Roger Stone

[[DHT]Osiris]

Um, actually, it really is. You are attacking them personally instead of the argument they are making. Them being a liar is not a argument against what they said, but who said it.
Calling what they said a lie would be a counter to their argument, but saying that they are a liar does tell us if the specific thing they said in this instance is a lie or not.

So can we just say 'That's a Republican Argument' instead? Or given that it's still a lie, does it still count as a personal attack?

At what point does just describing what someone did constitute attacking them to that person, and when should we stop giving a shit what they think?

 

[pauldun170]

When you lie and someone calls you a liar because of your lying, that is not a personal attack.

the magic of the ignore feature, you can filter out the noise generated that is underserving of response or recognition.

So can we just say 'That's a Republican Argument' instead? Or given that it's still a lie, does it still count as a personal attack?

At what point does just describing what someone did constitute attacking them to that person, and when should we stop giving a shit what they think?

I have certain people on ignore to filter out nonsense so I haven't read all the posts.
However,
If a poster repeatedly posts nonsense that insults the intelligence of every member of the forum based on the fact that only an idiot would take it serious, isn't that by definition an insult and a punishable offense?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If a poster repeatedly posts nonsense that insults the intelligence of every member of the forum based on the fact that only an idiot would take it serious, isn't that by definition an insult and a punishable offense?

That'd be called trolling, or at minimum consistently arguing in bad faith for their own amusement, and yes it should probably be punishable.

 

[dank69]

So somehow an article i linked that you disagree with turns me into a liar? If it's actually factually wrong, it would turn the person or persons writing it into a liar. Not that I agree with your assessment.

If you are not a liar, why do you post lies?

...

The Mueller investigation found insufficient evidence for prosecution, not zero evidence. ...

Even that is not accurate. The investigation found plenty of evidence to prosecute, it just stated that Department policy prevents them from prosecuting a sitting President. It also clearly stated that if they had determined that the President did nothing wrong, they would have plainly stated so, and that they could not do that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That'd be called trolling, or at minimum consistently arguing in bad faith for their own amusement, and yes it should probably be punishable.

Unfortunately, I feel that this falls adjacent to Poe's Law. At least one mainstream political party's views have become so extreme it is impossible to tell the difference between trolling and an honestly held belief.

 

[HomerJS]

Sorry, but it's pretty plainly stated in the

Announcement - Insults and Personal Attacks No Longer Allowed!

In order to be in compliance with recent EU regulations an as yet unadopted EU white paper, posters in P&N will no longer be allowed to levy ad hominems or any sort of personal attacks against another poster. As jpishgar, our maximum overseer, has outlined in his announcement right below this...

forums.anandtech.com

I abide by these rules, there is absolutely nothing i can do about the people that don't have the integrity to follow them.

Based on your posting history I can say without equivocation you don't give a rats ass about the integrity of following rules.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you are not a liar, why do you post lies?
Even that is not accurate. The investigation found plenty of evidence to prosecute, it just stated that Department policy prevents them from prosecuting a sitting President. It also clearly stated that if they had determined that the President did nothing wrong, they would have plainly stated so, and that they could not do that.

My reference was wrt collusion, not obstruction. When defense of the President comes down to "Neener-neener! Can't prove it!" we're dealing with some seriously screwed up people. It's like they're proud to blindly march shoulder to shoulder with Russian mind fuck artists. For the MAGA, obviously.

 

[Vic]

Many Trump supporters like to blame Obama's abuses, real or perceived, as justification for Trump's abuses. Which, from a purely partisan perspective, is not entirely wrong. Except that you have to be stupid enough, or authoritarian enough, to believe that your party will rule forever.

 

[zinfamous]

Um, actually, it really is. You are attacking them personally instead of the argument they are making. Them being a liar is not a argument against what they said, but who said it.
Calling what they said a lie would be a counter to their argument, but saying that they are a liar does tell us if the specific thing they said in this instance is a lie or not.

if >50% of their statements are lies, I think it's fair to call them a liar. We do have posting histories here.

 

[Vic]

The actual rule is EGREGIOUS insults and personal attacks. Being called a liar because someone thinks you're lying is hardly egregious.

 

[emperus]

Remember when the sky fell when Bill Clinton got on the plane with AG Lynch? Well, it seems Obama should have just called up Lynch and told her to drop the case... oh right that would require honesty and consistency on the right.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Apparently the press pool has been called to the White House for an announcement which is believed to be an executive action for clemency.....

Any bets?

Edit: Nope. Was a pardon for Edward Debartolo Jr.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Apparently the press pool has been called to the White House for an announcement which is believed to be an executive action for clemency.....

Any bets?

Edit: Nope. Was a pardon for Edward Debartolo Jr.

What possible excuse could Trump have for pardoning DeBartolo? He plead guilty, turned states witness, and was giving a slap on the wrist. The man was guilty as hell of bribing a government official. Oh. now I get it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

What possible excuse could Trump have for pardoning DeBartolo? He plead guilty, turned states witness, and was giving a slap on the wrist. The man was guilty as hell of bribing a government official. Oh. now I get it.

Ahem...

Donald Trump promotes pre-inauguration co-hosted by Jim Brown, Eddie DeBartolo

Eddie DeBartolo, Jim Brown, Ray Lewis, and Bobby Knight chilling with Donald Trump. Yup.

www.ninersnation.com

 

[Trell]

NM, Wrong thread...

 

[UNCjigga]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pardons-former-san-francisco-49ers-owner-edward-debartolo/2020/02/18/e47f9ed6-526a-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html

Here is the real reason:
“He’s been in jail for seven years over a phone call where nothing happens — over a phone call which he shouldn’t have said what he said, but it was braggadocio, you would say,” Trump told reporters last year. “I would think that there have been many politicians — I’m not one of them, by the way — that have said a lot worse over the telephone.”

So the call was perfect?

 

[HomerJS]

I hope 3 things happen at Stone's sentencing.

1. He gets close to first recommended sentencing memo (7-9 years)
2. He is sent to prison immediately.
3. A subpoena is ready to serve him as soon as Trump pardons so Stone will have to testify against Trump. If he doesn't its back to jail and Trump can't save him.

 

[ivwshane]

I hope 3 things happen at Stone's sentencing.

1. He gets close to first recommended sentencing memo (7-9 years)
2. He is sent to prison immediately.
3. A subpoena is ready to serve him as soon as Trump pardons so Stone will have to testify against Trump. If he doesn't its back to jail and Trump can't save him.

Why couldn’t trump save him a second time?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Sentencing hearing not going well for Stone. Defence argued that his email stating "Prepare to die, beautiful being" was not an actual threat. That's important since it carries heavy weight against the sentencing guidelines. Ultimately she concluded that the sentencing enhancement applies.

Also, the new DOJ lawyers seem to have backed off the sentencing memo from the DOJ. The judge has pointed out the first was never withdrawn. It's like the new lawyers have completely rejected Barr's interference.

My guess. 4-5 years.

Edit: I might have to change my guess. She is taking exception to the instagram post with a target on her head calling it threatening and intimidating conduct that could and did impede the administration of justice. It is intolerable and the court can not ignore it.

She now has him at 5.8-7.25 years based on the guidelines and his conduct but could still do lower.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Either Barr has backed right off or he is being told to go fuck himself.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1230524606856990721

https://twitter.com/x/status/1230525004875522049

No way that answer goes over well... Crabb signed the second recommendation!

 

[K1052]

I can't decide what is a worse clown show Stone's defense or the DOJ guideline saga.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha


Just heard on the radio, new Federal Prosecutors never revoked the previous Prosecutors sentencing recommendations.
Pure incompetence
Mini revolution
Or as always “Best minds, best people”

Which is it?

 

[allisolm]

And the sentence is 40 months. Less than the prosecutors wanted more than the defense wanted.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Wow. He only got 40 months... WTF?

 

[ivwshane]

And the sentence is 40 months.

Garbage. We have two justice systems, one for rich white guys and one for everyone else.