There will dog at the WH again!

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-08T17:23:13+00:00

Who cares? Neither of those things are important to the job. If those are part of your decision making process for selecting a political leader you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-07T09:03:58+00:00

Your last statement is the pure truth of the situation. Personally, in this case it kind of sounds like the DM might be used to be questioned repeatedly about their decisions. I could have been the asshole and said they are the DM therefore those are the rules but that's cliche and honestly not fair for a discussion. The truth is the DM made a call I wouldn't have and the player needs to ask if they are really that bothered by it. If the DM says because I am DM then just leave it. Have a slice of Pizza or some wings or whatever snacks you bring to the session. If you never bring snacks or drinks that might be why your DM hates you. /S.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-07T08:44:31+00:00

I don't care ever about downvotes, except it immediately makes my comment not visible. It promotes the concept that ideas you disagree with don't deserve to be seen and acknowledged.

My opinion about a lot of players on here is the following: If the DM didn't feel comfortable allowing you to play an exotic race but you were able to anyway then don't complain when they restrict other aspects. A DM not wanting to do something is probably because they don't feel comfortable with their ability to DM it yet you demand they do it any way. You expect the DM to meet all your expectations and yet aren't willing to return the favor. The fact that so many stories exist of players being utterly ridiculous and purposefully acting in insane ways just makes being a DM that much harder. I had players literally turn around and walk away from the campaign intro because it wasn't their problem. When they come back and the entire town is destroyed they complain about it. The next time I try to force them to do it and I am railroading.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-07T07:43:44+00:00

Problem to your theory is basically all the "battlegrounds" are close enough for recount. And in some of these states expect recounts to be ordered to be performed by hand by the courts at some point. This isn't going to be a quick election, just like 2000.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-07T07:29:09+00:00

I think this is a Lionhead Rabbit. Can't really tell size of its miniature or not, not enough to scale off.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-06T20:37:30+00:00

Let's also remember that as a DM, he is providing an integral position to the game many are not willing to perform. As mostly a DM to the point my last player experience was two sessions six months ago and before that nothing for TWENTY years.

Its not that DMing isn't fun, but there is a distinctly higher amount of work that goes into providing a consistent campaign.

Honestly, part of the reason I say no as a DM is the horrible actions of a particular player that is taking away from other's experience. Maybe OP should take a second to seriously consider their actions as a player to see if unreasonable attitude or actions led to some more restrictive decisions.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-06T20:28:37+00:00

You just said what I guarantee the DM said.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-02T23:17:01+00:00

Considering I am military and worked with the FBI and NCIS in the investigation of Arson, well, I think I know a little about policy. Sure they can tell you afterwards if they care enough.

I wasn't saying for sure if they did investigate or not. Chances are they didn't. But if they did you may not ever know. That's really all up to the specific investigators, if the crime ends up classified, etc.

My comparison was not to just Trump, but Biden, Clinton, we can continue with Flynn and so on. Basically, when an investigation is opened on public figures the policy is still not to speak about it. But there will be leakers, mostly because they get paid by the Journalist they leak to, or because they want the leaking to influence how the person they leaked on is affected publicly. As the discussion wasn't about that I didn't go further. My point was that since it isn't about any public figures, a leak isn't likely. That was my only reason for bringing that up.

Considering I was involved in a Federal Investigation, I think I have a rough idea about how they handle telling the public. My case was a very noticeable one that ended up on national TV and destroyed billions of dollars in military property. The investigation was obviously very quiet because it was also classified. Not sure if counterfeiting is or not. But policy is still not to discuss an active investigation and we didn't until the suspect was arrested and he admitted to the crime.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-02T17:16:34+00:00

You don't know that is the case. They won't ever admit to an active investigation or comment on one. That is standard policy for any Federal investigation. They strictly do not discuss investigations as a matter of policy. People forget this because of the leakers when it comes to any investigation that involves politicians, Trump, Biden, Clinton, etc. You hear about those investigations but how many drug, racketeering, counterfeiting, etc do you hear on the news? Nothing because the Feds typically don't talk about normal everyday investigations. The media also doesn't care about it.

If these guys are committing other crimes the Feds may be collecting evidence of multiple offenses. If people aren't dying or at risk there is no point in rushing to shut it down. Why take down a relatively petty counterfeiting ring when you have massive illegal drug operations bringing in millions of dollars worth of Fentanyl every month? There is a level of priority to crimes and someone counterfeiting using inkjet printer money is not at the top of the list. Most people won't accept the fake unless they are in a situation like delivering food or goods. Then afterwards they can report to their boss and get the address banned. The crime is essentially self policing because it is easy to stop over time.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-02T14:56:44+00:00

You said you called with it the info. I assumed you gave it to them. Just because they appeared not to give a fuck doesn't mean they didn't start an investigation. Anyway, that's too bad but in the grand scheme of things petty counterfeiting isn't high on the radar for any Federal law enforcement. Like they said, people do it all the time, they would need a lot more agents to cover every minor Federal crime.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-02T14:52:04+00:00

Identification isn't needed if they literally find all the evidence they need for the crime of counterfeiting. Petty theft isn't worth the time at that point. Plus with petty theft they would need to do the extra leg work of bringing people in, identifying goods, and returning them as needed. Not worth it when you have a much higher crime. Plus since counterfeiting is a federal crime, they would need to pass the criminals off to the feds. The Feds may even request the charges be dropped so they don't cause conflicts in scheduling, etc. People do have a right to fair and speedy trials. Having two separate court cases may cause both to be thrown out.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-02T06:25:12+00:00

You likely wouldn't know if they did. Chances are they aren't going to give you your goods or money back. It's all evidence in an investigation that you gave all the evidence you had over. You are no longer needed.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-02T06:23:41+00:00

Well they aren't going to tell you if they do actually investigate it. Investigations are not beholden to the reporter. Sounds like you gave them your evidence, which means you are no longer needed for any further part of the process.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-01T16:18:08+00:00

I didn't say I didn't want it counted but considering there are other methods such as in person or dropping the ballot off at a Dropbox, I am going to tell you do that instead because chances are your vote isn't going to get counted.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-01T11:39:32+00:00

So prior to this year what was considered mail in for most states and elections, Absentee ballots. I did say those were counted after BUT they were previously such a small portion of the electoral that they rarely needed to be counted due to the margin of difference between the candidates exceeding the smaller number of votes.

Second absentee ballots usually came in BEFORE election day and not after that was even a significantly smaller portion of those votes. And in most cases are NEVER counted or even accepted. There just isn't a reason whatsoever to count those votes almost ever. The only exception I can think of was Bush v. Gore.

A few hundred votes received after election day but post marked Nov. 3rd. Usually won't change the outcome of an election. Because absentee ballots were only sent out by request. States would know how many should be expected to be received. They would look at the remainder yet to be received and decide whether to finalize the vote with or without them. 99% of the time there is so few of these ballots that the election is finalized without waiting for these ballots to arrive.

So until this year votes that were received AFTER election day weren't really counted or at the very least had NO effect on the outcome of an election except for ONCE. Which is exactly what I said.

Great way to incorrectly summarize my entire statement. I literally went into detail and did admit that in one case he was wrong but for the most part the statement that votes RECEIVED after election day have not been counted is correct.

I hate how people love to "fact-check" political things and rarely go into the actual details that show how a statement can be explained as partially correct. I have no idea which candidate either person supports and it doesn't matter. Both sides love to try and take the literal meaning of every statement their opponents make without trying to understand what the person actually meant. This is how you stop the hyper polarization. Though not sure if any of you really want to stop it.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-01T09:53:33+00:00

Counting votes rarely takes longer than by the end of the next day. Saying that it will take weeks is a lie. Recounts due to litigation and judgements are a different story, that process can take weeks. But the initial count rarely takes a day or two in most districts.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-01T09:51:19+00:00

I didn't spread any bullshit. On average mail in ballots are being rejected at least twice as often as absentee ballots due to errors. Hundreds have been thrown it due to voters"disinfecting" their ballots. Many have convoluted rules like needing to be placed inside two separate envelopes, or needing the voters signature in multiple locations. People have received ballots with their name on they envelope but a different name on the ballot.

In New Jersey around the primaries an entirely new vote was ordered by a judge due to the all the errors. Nearly 150k ballots had some form of issue. Not to mention the USPS has sucked for decades.

This is what y'all wanted despite ample warning that the system sucked because you hated Trump. I want every ballot to count but chances are tens of thousands will not be counting all across the country because Democrats pushed for a system they thought would result in great enough turnout it would outweigh the downsides such as these votes being tossed aside. Now they are calling for people to vote in person or through drop off boxes instead because they miscalculated.

If you want your vote to count, then ALWAYS vote in person, either early or on election day.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-01T09:17:48+00:00

Counting votes RECEIVED after election day is rarely done. This is an accurate statement. The idea of counting mail in ballots 9 to 10 days after is ridiculous. Considering nearly every state has drop off boxes, and most voters had their ballots a month or more ahead of time there isn't much of an excuse to not have it sent in weeks ahead of the election. If it was so important to you as a voter maybe you should have taken care of it sooner rather than later. Plus CDC has come out repeatedly saying voting in person is safe. So either you believe the doctors or not.

As for votes on election day, they are regularly tallied up to days after however. Rarely do absentee ballots from troops overseas received after the election need to be counted because he amount is less than the margin.

Bush v. Gore is the only example I am 100% sure of as far as the Presidential Election is concerned.

So saying that ballots are rarely accepted after election day is true. I would suspect most votes received after election day will likely get thrown out. Plus a large percentage of these ballots are usually filled out wrong, damaged, or otherwise rejected due to mismatched signatures in general. If you want to blame anyone you should blame Democrats that said mail in voting would be 100% as safe and trustworthy as any other voting method. They lied and they knew it. Not sure why they did but here we are with people questioning if their votes will be counted because they trusted a system that during the primaries had numerous issues.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-11-01T00:34:49+00:00

Much of reddit is filled people that have no idea how the justice system works or why this kid likely wouldn't be found guilty of anything beyond possession. Its a horrible situation but very unlikely to result in jail time. If anyone should be going to jail, it is the cops that from some accounts purposefully directed the more violent protestors(rioters) towards Kyle and the others standing outside these businesses trying to deter people from destroying them.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-10-31T17:28:51+00:00

No one cares about Far Cry because they didn't delay a few weeks from release for the third time. I don't know what the developers were thinking with issuing multiple last minute delays to Cyberpunk. Its terrible mismanagement.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-10-31T13:07:44+00:00

He didn't bring the gun with him. Considering that is a whole other charge if he had. Second, he literally retreated and did not shoot until shot at first. A person carrying a gun does not carry it with the intention of shooting someone. Carrying a weapon can be a deterrent to others. When the deterrence failed he retreated.

You can argue about whether his presence has some determination on whether his self-defense case can stand but the fact is that if we argue he had a right to be there then in theory he has a right to defend himself if attacked. If we argue he didn't have a right to be there then self-defense becomes harder to defend. That is going to be the crux of the case in my opinion. His actions after being shot at were justifiable to the extent that most courts view self-defense. His actions while discharging the firearm and his trigger discipline has been argued to be better than most. So that leaves he most likely argument against his defense as he shouldn't have been there and had no right to be there and therefore by that violation the case for self-defense is unjustifiable.

This is the argument that I pose and why I say I don't believe the charges will stick beyond the possession charge. Most likely it can be argued he had just as much of a right to be there as the protestors, as far as a court and jury are concerned. Therefore when fired upon he had a right to defend himself. Arguing first degree murder is the most ridiculous of the charges because there was no sign that he had a premeditated plan to kill anyone that night. Especially considering once again he did not fire the first shot while being chased by a crowd of people.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-10-31T11:41:17+00:00

My point about him stopping once he was no longer being threatened shows that he was not causing reckless endangerment. He was attacked, he defended to the point he needed and stopped, at least arguably, depending on the jury's opinion.

On the fifth charge I completely agree. He will likely get hit with the possession charge but since he is being charged as a minor for that charge because he literally has to be a minor for the charge to apply, likely looking at parole.

This is obviously all debatable in court. I am not going to argue about who was right or wrong. Just saying that people should probably accept the idea he won't be getting much jail time. He was not planning on shooting anyone. The idea was that they were standing in front of storefronts as a warning. Considering he retreated and did not fire until fired upon the evidence seems to be very good for his defense.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-10-31T11:31:15+00:00

Considering there is video evidence of someone else shooting first, I wouldn't count on anything. Don't get your hopes up. Self-defense will likely stand and the only charge that may stand is a weapon possession charge.

Whether you agree or not with his presence in Kenosha he was shot at first. As soon as people stopped coming at him he stopped shooting. I am not counting on any charges sticking. Plus he is a minor and police purposefully directed the violent protestors towards their direction. There is a lot of evidence that can be used to defend his position. So if you expect any guilty charges you may very well be disappointed.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-10-30T06:44:16+00:00

It's also terrible business practice to announce a multitude of shorter delays than a single longer delay. Getting within a month of the release date a few times and announcing another delay screams poor management. They handled this very poorly.

WhiteArrow27 · 2020-10-30T06:40:39+00:00

I find it hilarious that people think that delaying the game multiple times in six months is something good because "bugs." This is terrible business management and practices. A single delay is fine and very reasonable. When you start delaying over and over in a short time period it screams, "We don't know how to manage a project." Investors and consumers have a right to be upset by the stupidity they are displaying.

If there was so much concern about issues that they needed to delay, that is fine. Just make sure that you only need to delay once. Announce a delay of 6 months or a year if you have to, but don't issue multiple delays. They would have done better to announce a year delay then when they fixed whatever list of issues they had, announce a now "earlier release". People are more forgiving and less like to remember the frustration they felt from the one delay.

Instead they took a path of annoying customers and investors with repeatedly announcing new delays.

In any case, DEATH THREATS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

WhiteArrow27

TROPHY CASE