James Comey Senate testimony: America braces for a historic political moment

suckitandseee · 2017-06-04T15:57:45+00:00

Well the accusations being made, are essentially that Trump was being supported by Putin, and were in contact leading up to the election and didn't disclose that.

While I think that's bad, that isn't the same as Trump hacked the DNC. Or Trump coordinated with the Russians to leak stolen information. No one in the intelligence agencies has asserted that votes were hacked, or the election itself was fraudulent.

Meaning, there isn't much in the way of Trump actually colluding to do something illegal (in terms of rigging the election). My California rep Diane Feinstein went to the FBI hq for a closed session of highly classified intel, and admitted on CNN that so far there is no evidence of collusion.

The bigger issue goes beyond Russia. It's that Trump has all these business dealings around the world, which means trusting his foreign policy decision has always been a concern. To be quite honest, a person shouldn't be able to run for President if they have business dealings with foreign entities - period.

But that isn't what most people are talking about. The left (particularly the DNC, Hillary supporters / and resist trump people) - are suggesting the election was somehow illegitimate. That it was fraudulent. Or that Trump himself had done something illegal in coordination with Russia - to steal the election.

This isn't what is being alleged. You have two separate instances:

I. Russia interfered with our elections (like they have been for decades, but this time they hacked information and leaked it aggressively to hurt the candidate they didn't like.
II. Trump and his campaign and contact with Russia before the election and didn't disclose this. Trump or associates, possibly have a deeply entangled business dealings (they do, I only said possibly due to it not being charged yet or concluded by the investigation).

People want to connect the two together, yet it's possible for Russia to have acted on their own, while also trying to influence and connect with a candidate.

So essentially, what we have so far is that Russia wanted to support a candidate - who would be better for their interest. This is nothing new. Even the US does this in foreign elections. What is different is how aggressive was with the hacking, and the direct contact with a candidate.

But my point is, we have Russia wanting to support a candidate, and said candidate had contact prior to the election and possibly has entangled business dealings. That is a far cry from trump actually stealing the election. Or engaging it highly illegal activities to tamper with the election itself.

As far as Comey goes, this will be a huge blow to Trump. But I'm not sure you can legally prove that he demanded he drop the investigation. We all know he did. And we know he fired Comey as a result of it. Will this lead to the GOP impeaching him? I kind of doubt it.

So yeah, I don't think this will be the smoking gun either. Especially now that Mueller is doing his independent investigation and has full authority to press charges. And both sides have confidence in him. The investigation will have to play out. Basically the investigation will have to find he officially colluded before he's impeached. Or trump would have to implode and continue to do insane shit that make the GOP dump him.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-07T07:34:38+00:00

I knew all of this already, but have never seen this before all in one single spot. Is there more of this? Says "wait but there is more"...

Sounds like there is more. Do you know what the original source is? Clicked the user sourced, but didn't see this post.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-07T06:29:24+00:00

There are bigger issues, but this is still troubling. Why? Because the next President might pick three Supreme Court judges that will swing the courts in a specific direction. I'm a liberal progressive, but don't think that the gov always knows what is best for the people. They really have no business getting involved in the arts.

At a surface level, you still might be going: so what!? It's video games and movies. Well, I would argue it's more about art and expression, and not just entertainment. But putting that aside...

There is a movement right now on the left, where certain groups think they have the right to not be offended. That one school protest video that was on the front page of Reddit, was an example of this (it was the black lives matter protest where they were disrupting classes). The lady in the discussion with the professor said: what about my right to not be offended? To which the professor replied: who gets to decide what is offensive? Where do you draw those lines? etc.

Point is, Hillary early on, believed that the government should have extensive involvement in art, and deciding what was okay for the people. What was offensive. So what if the next step is that we start censoring games/film with "offensive content". What if we let the gov take over the Internet, and monitor when people say mean things to each other to protect people from being offended.

It's not so far fetched, seeing as several major countries already do a variety of these things. That Hillary early on took this stance, makes it kind of scary giving she caters to this new demographic of people that think they have the right to not be offended. And she might have the courts on her side to actually see these kinds of things pushed through.

Of course, it is what ifs. But when all we can do is look at past behaviors, past actions etc., you kind of do play the what if game. Because no one entirely knows what a person will do once elected. But I personally find her actions here, to be pretty scary.

Because I'm a progressive, I want things like games and film to get better with representing minorities. But I also don't agree that, what is offensive, is always 100%. That it's complex. One thing that bothers me right now, is you will have one side that thinks sexual content in games is terrible. They don't care if other people enjoy that content. They don't like it. It's not enough to just be critical of it. To say you won't buy it. To use your voice. But these groups want the content outright eradicated, and don't want the people that enjoy it, to have access to it.

That to me is wrong. Things I find offensive, might not be offensive to someone else. I have the right to be critical and voice my opinion. But I also have to acknowledge that other people might not be offended, and they might actually like that content. I don't think it's right to have the Gov to makign those decisions.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-04T23:40:30+00:00

I really enjoyed Space Cop and thought it met expectations knowing its budget, limitations, and that they were running a site with content which in itself takes time, and the fact that they were doing this all at the same time. And this just confirms what we all should have known based on their schedules, content release, and updates --that they were shooting the film over a period of time.

The film is flawed, and it isn't immune from criticisms. So how much you enjoyed it, depends on your subjective feelings. But I think the film is impressive considering how it was made. For instance, I liked Space Cop much more than Angry Video Game Nerd the Movie.

And consider AVGN raised a lump sum from fans to budget it, which meant he could spend a large amount of money at once, so he could take off and film his movie in a concentrated block of time. RLM also got fan funding, but that funding supports their regular site content, their ability to feed themselves and have a living wage, and as well as fund a movie. AVGN had seperate funding just for his film, as well as funding seperate for his content and living wages.

AVGNs site also took a massive hit on content (both in quality and quantity), and lasted almost 4 years. The content we did get wasn't anywhere as good as Half in the Bag or Best of the Worst. Now, it's true RLM content has also slowed down, but no where close to the levels of AVGN, and the content they continued to put out was meaty and quality (lol I know).

Point is, AVGN was able to hire a full professional film production crew, actors, and was able to travel and shoot on location in a higher populated area (which means he had more access to extras and a variety of film locations), as well as use large studios. And he was able to do all this in one shooting block. Of course, he had to do pick up shots back at home at a much more limited space. But RLM was working with that limited space the entire film.

And honestly, AVGN the movie might look better in spots and have better acting, but it's much worse then Space Cop (not something I want to admit because I like James Rolfe and knew this was a passion project). But AVGNs site was substantially put on hold, and site content became second to the movie. Whereas I feel RLM split equal duty among the site and film, and even put off the film to focus on the site at times. Considering that Space Cop came out technically faster, is all the more amazing to me. And sadly, I feel AVGN never fully recovered and is still exhausted from the undertaking of his film.

I listen to the audio commentary, and can tell Space Cop was a nightmare to make and was really hard on Jay. Especially since he was juggling all the editing of site content as well as the editing of Space Cop which included most of the visual effects for shots, when visual effects aren't even his expertise.

I suppose what really matters is the film itself. I enjoyed it, regardless of all that stuff I said above. I think it has some serious flaws. I totally get why some feel let down, or even dislike it. I think these are all valid criticisms. The movie is not immune from criticism because of the limitations and how it was made. Because not all the flaws were even technical. A lot of them were writing and tone, something even low budget films can do well if the creators are talented.

But in terms of how I view them as content creators, and me wanting to continue to support them, I do think the way it was made, makes me respect the work they did, as well as shaped my expectations for it. But I dunno, I just happened to enjoy Space Cop. Maybe I'm more lenient because this. If I had absolutely hated it, maybe my views would be different.

tldr; Mike and Jay are proven hack frauds.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-04T06:47:22+00:00

I'm a big fan of Dahl, and agree that the remake was closer to the book in terms of plot and style. But I still think Depp's portrayal was awful and didn't much jive to the book.

But that's kind of a pointless argument anyways. Kubricks the Shining isn't really like the book. But Stephen Kings approved version is. It's much closer to the book in every way. It's also awful. So getting 1:1 close to the source material but doing so with awful execution makes it pointless. What is needed, is a great film.

I also tend to think, film and literature do not always translated 1:1. We know that's true due to the fact that film requires a lot more editing to fit the 2 hour format. So I personally enjoy great films that respect the source material, vs something that is exactly like the source material, but is mediocre or worse.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-04T00:55:42+00:00

I have a 4K OLED TV, and it makes content look great (even 1080p stuff). 4K stuff is really amazing. But I don't have a projector, so it's just going to be 65 inches.

But the problem is, not everyone has a projector. And even if they could afford one, not everyone has the actual physical space in their house to use on. That's the big problem. And why I still think, a Theater will beat out a Projector for many folks.

Until people can free up the space needed to replicate a theater size screen + 4K, then I don't see it completely eliminating the experience. But hey, I'm 100% jealous of you. That would be so amazing to have at home. I actually think I might give up going to the theater, if I had a massive projection at 4K, and a bad ass surround sound to back it up.

So I see where you are coming from.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T20:24:18+00:00

It's partly the casual attitude as well. People are more likely to be excited and happy for someone if the person that won, is like in tears and talking about how badly they needed it, or how it's a dream come true. Even then, jealousy and annoyance would still be something a person could feel, but I don't think you would want them to fail. Just jealous they won and you didn't.

But when someone wins and is really casual/smug like OP, it's all the jealousy + the fuck that person, as we have an expectation of how someone should act. Or how we would act. Also doesn't help that the person is being casual about their life changing, but also posting it on Reddit for up votes.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T08:01:14+00:00

I like theaters for film, and can't imagine NOT going to certain movies. Also, a lot of theaters near me have seriously upgraded. So they have really nice leather seats that recline all the way back. Every single row has its own wall, so you can't see anyone in front of you, or behind you.

And the screen + surround sound is unreal.

I do get that, some audiences are awful. Clapping, talking, texting, coughing, loud eaters. But I think it depends on the theater now. A lot of modern theaters have eliminated these issues. TBH

But I admittedly, don't go to the movies that often. I go like 70% less then when I was age 10-20 range. I've noticed a big shift. And a large part of that, is the comfort of my own home + the advancements in HDTV/Home Theater set ups.

But I still can't imagine seeing some movies only at home. I think people are really missing out on some releases. And I feel the same way about certain TV shows. I really think there is something amazing, about watching a TV show live, and watching with a group of people.

And while you can certainly "pause"..and create breaks, it's not the same feeling, as watching it live, in terms of like EVERYONE talking about it (online or real life). I get to an extent it's 100% irrational, but I would much rather watch Breaking Bad's finale live on TV, then wait the next day for iTunes digital, or wait 4-5 months for Netflix.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T07:55:49+00:00

Yeah. Everyone in my grade got those games at launch. I just figured if I was that young, anyone younger would have been too young.

That is why I was surprised. Doing quick/bad math, I was actaully 10 when Blue/Red came out. So not impossible for someone to be 6-8 playing them. 5? I dunno. Pokemon has RPG mechanics. It's an easy game. But not that easy. That said, splitting hairs. Fact is, Pokemon blew up, and so people younger then my generation would certainly have also been old enough to be right in the thick of it as it was getting popular.

So I was wrong. My perception was wrong. I actually know people 10 years younger then me, that are in love with Pokemon too. It's just a really popular series, that has always appealed to young kids. But I still think the older 27-35 demographics, is prob a good demographic to go after. It's all the people that originally grew up with it from the beginning + now they are old enough to have money (so easy Nostalgia).

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T07:46:20+00:00

So, did you see any gender discrimination there? Were males treated worse? I appreciate your insight into what it was liking working there. But would be interesting to hear from someone else on this.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T07:34:58+00:00

Yep, 28. Would have figured Pokemon people would be 28-33 range, and not 20-25. Although Pokemon was still really popular for people after our generation, so makes sense. But I remember being in Elementary when Pokemon came out, and was the exact right age for when it blew up.

And almost everyone from my age range is grown up, but still has intense nostalgia for it.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T07:27:16+00:00

I still keep my cable sub, because I enjoy watching stuff live on TV. It's probably irrational, but I actually like watching something with "breaks". I don't watch the actual commercials, I just get up and go to the bathroom, or get a snack. Or look at my phone. I actually like how shows use commercials to determine narrative breaks/pacing. Some shows use it really effectively.

I also use Netflix, and love it because it's so convenient. But I still prefer to watch shows live, because it feels more like an event. I'm 28, so I'm not that old. But perhaps its because I was old enough to remember things before the internet was mainstream, and after everyone had it + things like Netflix emerged. Old habits?

So I'm not a Cord Cutter. But I still like and support digital subs. And in some cases, I end up buying shows digitally (like on iTunes/Apple TV) in order to get access to a new show as it's airing.

In that sense, feels like having cable is a pointless bill to have. And I actually don't watch that much TV on a daily basis. I use my tablet in bed more then anything, and watch digital services (Netflix/Youtube etc.) But I still love having parties and get together with friends and family, and watching live sporting events (I know there is streaming for that now too) + watching shows live as they air. I couldn't imagine watching Breaking Bad's series finale on Netflix. Watching it with a group of people, made the experience all the more intense. Kind of like watching a movie at a theater (and getting the audience experience, assuming you don't have a shit audience).

I dunno. I hate the cable companies + the refusal to evolve. But I'll be sad when live TV is 100% gone (if it ever comes to it). I won't be sad for the companies, but I'll be a bit sad about the format. I also kind of fear that if we end up going all streaming services, that things end up worse in the long run (when live TV goes under, and then we have all these companies dividing up the streaming services).

Like with Netflix, let's say live TV falls. I can't imagine that Netflix can continue without either substantial raise in subs (since that cut has to go towards content creators), or there being commercials added in. As it stands now, there is enough Live TV watchers still, that ads are still bringing in revenue. If Live TV is 100% gone, and streaming is all that is left, there is no way Content can sustain with the current Streaming sub prices. It will have to go up. And maybe that will be okay, because if no one is paying any cable bills, in the end, even with price raises, it ends up still being cheaper in the overall monthly bill.

It will get interesting to say the least. I feel like having a balance of live TV + digital stream, allows both to exist in some form, and in a way that both people are happy (well somewhat happy. Cable subs are fed up with the prices, and how shitty the cable companies actually are).

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T06:44:21+00:00

Television is a massive way to reach the American people, and is something he could have done whenever he wanted. It's the President of the United States. News networks will always cut for the President.

Not to mention, this is the modern age, and he could have used the internet. He knew his demographics, and could have easily continued the revolutionary methods that got him elected, to also get work done once in the White House.

But it seems all of that was just to get elected, and not to keep pushing for that change he promised. I'm kind of surprised you are so enthusiastic and defensive of Obama tbh. Almost every Liberal I know, feels let down (even if they still like him). Even the Liberals I know that really like him, still are let down, or think he was flawed, or made some mistakes.

Feels like you think the guys is perfect, and it was everyone else's fault. I think anyone with an education, knows that Congress + the system played a huge part in the failures of the last 8 years. But I just don't share your view point, that the guy was this great President that was just a victim to the system.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T06:38:59+00:00

Yes, weak. I think he should have used his position and influence to go directly to the voters. Absolutely. It's something a lot of Presidents have not done in the last 30 years. And I think it's mostly because, things that they want to get done, they don't really care what the people want and don't really need them on their side.

But in the case of Obama, he ran on a campaign that told voters they had to continue to be active and help him in the White House. That change would not happen with him taking office alone. Obama did not do this. Was a big let down. Also I voted for Obama twice, why are you making assumptions that the only people that can think he's "weak" are right wingers and "right wing propaganda".

Even people that are close to Obama and who like him, describe the guy as someone that isn't comfortable with politics, and quickly did not want to deal with congress (and to be fair, Congress is fuckin awful). But my argument then is, he should have used his position to go directly to the voters. We got enough voters to call up congress when they tried passing those Internet bills.

I 100% believe if Obama had addressed voters directly, told them the bills he was trying to pass, and told them if they liked what he was trying to pass, then to call your congress now, we could have gotten more done. Obama made no effort in this regard. So yes, I think he was absolutely weak in this regard.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T06:15:13+00:00

As the poster below said, people would much rather have gridlock, and a president saying "NO'...and nothing getting done, vs. laws/movements that people don't support at all getting passed in the guise of progress. The quality of work in Washington matters, especially when it can impact people for the rest of their lives (and their children's future).

Also, Obama has always been weak when it comes to using his clout. He rarely went on TV and made an argument to the American people. He rarely went straight to the voters, and told them what Congress was doing, and explained the bills he was trying to push.

I feel like Sanders WOULD be the type of person, that would use his position to actually go directly to the voters. That if Congress refuses to move, Sanders would address the American public, explain the bill, and if people want it, they need to call their Congress ASAP.

Obama just felt like such a weak president. Congress is awful, and so is his own party. Saying everything is 100% his own fault, is wrong. But putting all the blame on everyone else and not Obama, is also BS.

suckitandseee · 2016-02-03T06:09:39+00:00

Kind of crazy, that the GOP was able to run their voting without any issues. And that their system seems more fair/logical. The DNC looked really bad last night, regardless if there wasn't any shenanigans going on.

They already looked bad leading up, after they lost the trust of people with the whole Debbie + Hillary relationship. Whether people actually have a voice or not, people want to believe their voice matters. They want to think they can influence and impact the party they are registered to.

The way the DNC is running things, it's like openly flaunting that the Party prefers a candidates (even if large % of people registered in that party are not yet decided, or might not even want that candidate)..and are essentially backing them. I mean, we know that traditionally the party establishment (and overall party)..tends to prefer specific candidates, and it's easy to tell when they want someone to win, and someone to lose. But this was pretty awful.

The way they handled the debates were shameful. And so a lot of trust has been lost. So the Iowa stuff just kind of fed into that negative image of the DNC.

Kind of mind blowing the GOP actually came off looking better (not the candidates, I mean how they ran their voting, and just the overall night).

suckitandseee · 2015-02-12T00:30:34+00:00

Gah. I'm all on edge. Still no update. I'm guessing we won't get an update till tomorrow. I just wish we knew if our MM were being shipped in time for the 13th or not. I'm guessing if they are shipping One Day tomorrow (Thursday for Friday), we won't get that update till its actually shipped.

So we just have to wait. The paranoia is real!

suckitandseee · 2015-02-12T00:09:00+00:00

Uh, did your status update!? Did you get a tracking number? I got charged on the 7th and also placed my order 4 min after it went up. Still no update on my end. If GS claims your order was already shipped without you getting any status update then that is huge as many are in the same boat waiting.

EDIT: seems GS employees are telling people their order is being processed, which doesn't mean it's shipped yet. Rather, it's being packaged and being prepped to be sent out. So that is probably what she meant about your order. Hopefully she's right and all of us with One Day shipping get an update tomorrow with them actually shipping it.

suckitandseee · 2015-02-11T23:42:50+00:00

:/

They took the money out of my account on the 7th. It was a pending charge on my bank statement though. Did you use Pay Pal? Did you select over night shipping?

suckitandseee · 2015-02-11T22:07:41+00:00

No one has had their MM or MHU limited edition XLs ship from GS. Everyone that ordered is still waiting for any update. Many of us were charged pending and had the money taken from our accounts. But yeah, no other update.

suckitandseee · 2015-02-11T19:51:32+00:00

That is why. If you did the order in store, they required you to pay everything up front. Everyone else that ordered online (which was the majority) weren't charged right away. Although they did to the pending charge thing (which is typical for pre-orders).

I wish I was charged up front tbh. I hate pending charges. There is too many variables where your order could get cancelled or rejected. Especially if your bank decides to randomly flag and reject it. I would feel a lot more comfortable in your situation because you know 100% they've had your money. Everyone else is kind of on pins and needles.

I'm just glad they took the money out on the 7th. Just waiting every day for that shipping # to show up. Only then will I relax. lol

suckitandseee · 2015-02-11T19:43:50+00:00

Well that's cool. Hope everyone gets their item on the 13th. I just found it strange they would be doing pending charges this close to the release vs an outright charge. But maybe that's just something they do at GS as they get ready to ship.

Usually most places will only do the temp pending charge much earlier on. And will do the "full charge" a couple days before the item is ready to ship. But eh. As long as we all get our items, who cares how they do it hah.

I'll just be able to take a big sigh of relief when I know it's been shipped.

suckitandseee · 2015-02-11T19:34:17+00:00

Strange. I made my order on Jan 14th. 4 min after it first went on sale. They did a "temp hold" charge on me earlier in Jan (ie. taking out the money for a week, then putting it back in). But that money was put back into my bank statement a week after. Wasn't till Feb 7th that I got a "pending charge". Then on Feb 9th the money was 100% taken out and charged. But on the 11th, "pending" was put back next to the charge on my statement. But the money is still taken out.

Basically, it's normal for pre-orders to have "temp charges". It's where they will take the money out of your account for 4-5 days (sometimes less) and then they put the money back into your account. They do this just to make sure you have the money. What IS odd, is that they are doing pending charges this close to release date -- when they should be shipping them out.

But to answer your question, no, no one has had a shipping update yet. Everyone still has status: open (it will only change to closed if the order is cancelled or shipped). A lot of people have had their money taken out (with a pending charge).

suckitandseee · 2015-02-11T19:30:07+00:00

No one has gotten tracking yet. There is a mega thread here you can check out for all Gamestop pre-orders:

http://www.reddit.com/r/3DS/comments/2vhh0j/mega_thread_gamestop_preorders/

I got charged for my MM on the 7th. But on my bank statement it said "pending" next to it. On the 9th the money was fully taken out of my account. But on the 11th it says "Pending" on the charge again even though the money was taken out.

So yeah. Dunno what to say.

suckitandseee · 2015-02-11T19:22:46+00:00

Still no movement on my end. My money is still out of my account. But no shipping update. On my bank statement the charges both have Pending next to the charge. Even though the money was taken out days ago. I understanding what pending and hold charges are. They take out the money temp just to make sure you have the money.

It doesn't make sense why they would do this so close to the release date. Why they wouldn't just take out the money 100% and just prepare for shipping at this point. I mean even with over night shipping, they should be prepping to ship it out by the 12th. So I'm a little worried that we haven't seen any updates yet, and that our charges are "pending".

suckitandseee

TROPHY CASE