Trump 2016

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 3:18 pm

I say vandalism IS theft. Defacing property means they have to spend time/effort/money un-defacing it. You've just had money stolen from you because of someone elses actions. You've just lost whatever revenue said defaced thing was going to generate in that time. Hell, if you want to really think about what things mean, if I spray paint your fence, and you have to spend money repainting it, and you have to work for your money, then basically your work just went to cover for my actions. I just enslaved you.

Dude, digital backups are auto-fucking-matic and I bet his IT staff works at a flat rate. I'm still waiting for an estimate of how much cash he lost as a result of trumptowers.com being down for a fraction of a day. To equate website defacement with enslavement is a massive leap. Applying physical analogies to code isn't working.

Cut off the hands ... But theft of entertainment/leisure items... harsher penalties. No leniency.

Fuck that. I'm not supporting a society of the handless and I'm certainly not supporting physical maiming for stealing a candy bar.

if someone needs to steal to keep from starving, they have been failed by society in some way.

And I sure as shit don't agree with this.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:28 pm

Malcolm wrote:Fuck that.

In this episode, Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton) is sentenced to death after inadvertently breaking the law on an alien planet.

So to be clear... you are going on record that you love Wesley and didn't want him to die?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:37 pm

TheCatt wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Fuck that.

In this episode, Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton) is sentenced to death after inadvertently breaking the law on an alien planet.
So to be clear... you are going on record that you love Wesley and didn't want him to die?

He deserves death for many reasons. Breaking some glass isn't one.

Post by **GORDON** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:46 pm

Thieves never stop so you might as well take their hands to make them pay for it and act as a warning to the others. All thieves are scum.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:48 pm

GORDON wrote:Thieves never stop so you might as well take their hands to make them pay for it and act as a warning to the others. All thieves are scum.

I going to remind you of that next time you "borrow the internet's copy" of something.

Post by **GORDON** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:49 pm

Still waiting on your answer about what percentage of a person's net worth it needs to be to be considered theft.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:53 pm

I've already stated my position that vandalism isn't theft, certainly not digital vandalism either. If they do this repeatedly or for an extended period of time, I might change my view of how serious it is.

Edited By Malcolm on 1450065427

Post by **GORDON** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 11:56 pm

Malcolm wrote:Neither his bottom line nor livelihood have been significantly impacted.

Define "significant." What percentage of net income until it becomes a crime, in your opinion.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:00 am

What income does he derive from that site that got lost? Did the site going down stop any deals from going through? Is it above zero? Because zero is what I think it is, and it's quite insignificant. Maybe it cost him one IT dude's salary for a day. Hence my "$1k fine and fuck it" mentality. Start imposing more punishment when it becomes more than a one-off event.

Edited By Malcolm on 1450073284

Post by **TPRJones** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:43 pm

GORDON wrote:Still waiting on your answer about what percentage of a person's net worth it needs to be to be considered theft.

Completely irrelevant. It could be 100% and still not be theft. Theft has two key components, and if either one is missing then the crime involved isn't theft. It's something else.

1) The criminal gains ownership (in the "possession is 9/10ths" sense) of something they should not have, and

2) The victim no longer has ownership of the thing that was stolen.

If the former is true but not the second then whatever the "thing" is in question was clearly copied because there are now more things than previously existed. This is still likely a crime, but it is not theft. If you could copy a car we'd all be driving Lamborghini.

If the second is true but not the former then whatever the "thing" is was either destroyed or otherwise lost entirely. Depending on the details this could be vandalism, arson, destruction of property, or maybe even terrorism. But it's not theft.

The way you've defined theft here in these posts above, nearly every action a person can take that has any effect on someone else is theft. Fail to make proper change for a cup of coffee and thus steal a nickel from someone is theft worthy of hand removal? Drive an Uber and thus steal business from the taxicab mobsters? Off with your hand! Decide to buy a Ford meaning you won't be buying a Toyota and thus reduce the revenue of Toyota and their shareholders? Chop chop!

Edited By TPRJones on 1450115513

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:25 pm

This is vandalism. They can't restore the wall from a backup.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:20 pm

Thoughts from various Trump-supporting psychos.

"When you're in war, you have to take steps that are not American to protect yourself and defend the country," said Margaret Shontz, of Cedar Falls, Iowa, as she arrived at a Trump campaign stop in Des Moines on Friday.

Good to know the Constitution is that pesky, bullshit thing that's only applicable when sunshine pours out your asshole and has no practical use in times of stress of conflict.

"Think about it. You don't know what you've got here. You've got no clue," she said of the Muslim tourists, immigrants and refugees Trump wants to temporarily bar from coming to the U.S.

"You don't know if they like us. You don't know if they hate us," said Hooker, 47, of Greer, South Carolina. "You don't know why they're here."

I'm pretty sure you can apply that paranoia to any ethnic group you don't like. We better bar the Chinese, too, because they're all hackers that steal state secrets and ship them back behind the Great Wall.

Iowa's Dale Witmer, 90, a registered Republican and Word War II veteran who likes Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, embraced the Muslim ban as a "great idea." While he has concerns about Trump's unfiltered style, he praises him for talking about things he says others are thinking but afraid to say themselves.

"I'd like to go back (to) when I was younger in the 50s and 60s, when the country was a little better. It was America then. I'm starting to worry we're starting to lose identity in this country, I do believe," Witmer said.

I bet Mr. Witmer looks back fondly on the '40-'60s because he wasn't black or Japanese.

Dan Edwards, a retired banker from Van Meter, Iowa, who brought his family to Trump's town hall in Des Moines on Friday, said the real estate mogul's words were taken out of context to make his plan sound more extreme.

"I think it's been made into something it wasn't meant to be. I think basically what he's doing is saying, 'OK, wait a minute. Refugees, we need to make sure we know what we're looking for and to make sure everything is in place,' " said Edwards, 53, who compared the proposal to a temporary "time out" while the country re-assesses the situation.

No, he didn't mention refugees, actually. He words imply any and all people are refused entry to this country based solely on their faith.

When asked by AP if the ban would apply to U.S. citizens traveling, working or living abroad, including American servicemen and women who are Muslim, Trump responded via a spokeswoman, "You figure it out!"

That's for clearing that up, asswipe.

"Being compared to Hitler is how you know you've reached the apex," said Gary Hopper, 58, of Bedford, New Hampshire.

I'll let that stand on its own.

"I know we all came from somewhere else," she added, "but this is a different time now."

You have to be shitting me. What the fuck does that mean?

Edited By Malcolm on 1450124448

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:27 pm

One of many reasons why think Trump's proposal is idiotic.

Madihha Ahussain, a staff attorney at the national group Muslim Advocates, said people who are misinformed about both religions not only are "blaming entire faith communities, now they're blaming multiple groups for the acts of a couple individuals."

"A couple individuals" is up for debate, even from me. Using "Islam" by itself is a poor way to go about barring people from the country. "Violent, extremist, religious assholes" is far more accurate and I might support that one.

Edited By Malcolm on 1450204453

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 1:39 pm

Douchebags of a feather...

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:09 pm

Malcolm wrote:Douchebags of a feather...

Asshole endorses douchebag.

Many of Putin’s comments circled back to relations with the United States, including a bit of look-ahead musing on the White House race. Putin said Russia would work with “whomever the American voters choose,” but he singled out Trump.

“He’s a very lively man, talented without doubt,” Putin said according to the Interfax news service after the news conference. He added that Trump is the “absolute leader in the presidential race.”

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:10 pm

He might be softening his aggressive ways.

I've got to think now that people think he's got an actual chance, they're no longer going to let him fly off the handle with stupid things and they're reign him in.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:25 pm

"You can't fix stupid."
- Ron White

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:02 pm

Are you talking about Trump or every candidate?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:12 pm

Leisher wrote:Are you talking about Trump or every candidate?

There's no way a minor shift in rhetoric and attitude is going to have an impact on his overall behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that's all he'll be capable of. It's like Snoop Dogg saying he needs to cut back on smoking bud or Steve-O saying he needs to stop doing stupid stunts. Is there room for improvement if the desire is real? Sure. Do I believe any of them mean it? Hell, no. Trump especially. Goddamn, the Snoop/Steve-O analogy isn't enough. I don't think Donnie Douchebag even has the psychological tools to tone it down.

Edited By Malcolm on 1450386885

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:53 pm

Goddamnit. See what happens when you drag the depths for trolls?

Edited By Malcolm on 1450392819