[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51249858]You know fuck toxx me to if somehow Hillray loses[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm jumping on this too. Besides, if it goes south, I'm going to need the time anyway.
Since Trump supporters here are either quiet or don't seem too confident in a victory, what would be a more interesting toxx that someone on both sides might actually be willing to take?
Whether Clinton will get at least 55% of the popular vote or not?
Is there really any point to Toxxing a clinton victory at this point? The odds are what, 13.9% for a Trump victory at 538?
For the Brexit Comparison, two weeks from referendum showed Brexit Winning or Toss-up.
Clinton is 6-12 Points ahead, this is not brexit.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51249509]Darn it, I'm tempted to do it but I'd like an alternative to permaban.[/QUOTE]
you can put an escape clause in there, like "if clinton wins I'll eat a dollar" and if the first part of your toxx clause is satisfied then you have to satisfy the second part to be unbanned
[editline]23rd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51249545]1. She didn't break any crime.
2. Alleged crime she broke wouldn't be punishable with death penalty.
3. Even if it was punishable with death penalty, she couldn't be put on trial in a state with capital punishment.[/QUOTE]
treason is punishable by death according to 18 U.S. Code § 2381.
[QUOTE=butre;51250217]you can put an escape clause in there, like "if clinton wins I'll eat a dollar" and if the first part of your toxx clause is satisfied then you have to satisfy the second part to be unbanned
[editline]23rd October 2016[/editline]
treason is punishable by death according to 18 U.S. Code § 2381.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Treason]The offence of attempting to overthrow the government of the State to which one owes allegiance either by making war against the State or by materially supporting its enemies. Black’s Law Dictionary, 2ndPE,West Grp, pub. 2001 – Pg 720[/quote]
Fuck this Treason bullshit being thrown around. Demonstrate to me how Hillary Clinton attempted to overthrow the us government. You need to prove intent. Being responsible for information getting into the hands of our enemies doesn't prove that.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51249511]
God, what are future historians gonna say about 2016? That we elected someone we loathed because the only other option was even more loathed?
[/QUOTE]
They're going to say 2016 was the year that we elected the first woman US president. They might vaguely mention the election was full of controversy. They might focus on the ways the Information Age changed how that election went.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;51250357]It literally says, "or by materially supporting its enemies."
How is what Hillary did NOT treason? It wasn't intentional treason, it was just a retarded decision on her part but this decision should have dire consequences. Yet no one really cares. All the focus is on Trump's idiocy. This is extremely appalling to see.[/QUOTE]
How did she 'materially support enemies'? What she did was, at worst, negligence and destruction of evidence. And even the latter of that is maybe a stretch. Hell, you also admit that it clearly wasn't intentional, so how the fuck can it be treason? Where is the intention to overthrow?
[QUOTE=Marbalo;51250357]How is what Hillary did NOT treason? It wasn't intentional treason,[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as "accidental treason"
[QUOTE=Chaplin;51249502]yes, always[/QUOTE]
Nope. It's just an "If X, I will do Y"
If they don't do Y, they can be banned, but permabanning isn't the intended result of a toxx. It would be something like "If trump wins, I will take a shit in craptasket's driveway"
As much as I despise clinton and desire her to face the consequences of her actions, her facing those consequences now, means we all face the consequence of Donald J Trump leading the free world for however long that persists
Did I claim a toxx already?
I want to say I toxxed on the election being extremely close, like a 5 percent difference between who becomes president and who doesn't.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx Clause: Permaban if the election day Clinton/Trump popular vote difference is larger than 5%. No escape." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
-snip, I've changed my mind after seeing the dude below the other dude's post-
Fuck it I'll toxx. If Trump wins, I'll eat one of those papyrus library copies of the Constitution and record myself doing it. If I don't, permanent me.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx Clause: If Trump wins, user must devour printed copy of US Constitution or be permabanned" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
Honestly I wouldn't consider toxxing over this election in million years- Facepunch has some of the funniest commentary on it that ive seen, and Id hate to run the risk of missing checking up on the fun here when the results come in.
i wonder if trump will run again in 2020
[QUOTE=Cructo;51250838]presidents usually run for a second term yeah[/QUOTE]
Toxx IT if you're so sure or hold your tongue
At this point, I think that it'd be much more interesting to toxx about the outcome in specific states or whether it will be a landslide rather than toxxing a Clinton victory.
we should really just have a toxx general thread in GD
[QUOTE=Judas;51250965]we should really just have a toxx general thread in GD[/QUOTE]
[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1508528]Here you go.[/url]
[QUOTE=Cructo;51250838]presidents usually run for a second term yeah[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-cawg.gif[/IMG]
I can't wait for a democratic president, democratic senate, and a liberal-stacked SCOTUS.
[QUOTE=L'Citizen;51250729]Fuck it I'll toxx. If Trump wins, I'll eat one of those papyrus library copies of the Constitution and record myself doing it. If I don't, permanent me.[/QUOTE]
This is the first legitimate, actual toxx in the thread.
All others are "ban me if x happens" which in any other scenario prior to this election I think would warrant a "wants to be banned" ban from mods anyway? :v:
Toxx time, if Trump wins I'll get peppersprayed on video or get perma'd.
That's how certain I am that this racist orangutan isn't gonna win :v:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx: If Trump wins presidency, permaban me. Escape: I must be peppersprayed on video." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Riller;51250370]How did she 'materially support enemies'? What she did was, at worst, negligence and destruction of evidence. And even the latter of that is maybe a stretch. Hell, you also admit that it clearly wasn't intentional, so how the fuck can it be treason? Where is the intention to overthrow?[/QUOTE]
the only place where intention has historically been a major factor in sentencing is murder where if you accidentally kill someone, it's manslaughter instead. elsewhere, intent has always been irrelevant. "but officer, I didn't mean to shoplift" or "I got this weed accidentally" would never fly in court.
[QUOTE=butre;51251618]the only place where intention has historically been a major factor in sentencing is murder where if you accidentally kill someone, it's manslaughter instead. elsewhere, intent has always been irrelevant. "but officer, I didn't mean to shoplift" or "I got this weed accidentally" would never fly in court.[/QUOTE]
Lets imagine you're in the army, and you're supposed to guard a tank. But you nap on the job and the enemy steals it from you. Would you be charged with treason for "materially supporting" the enemy?
[QUOTE=The Vman;51251668]Lets imagine you're in the army, and you're supposed to guard a tank. But you nap on the job and the enemy steals it from you. Would you be charged with treason for "materially supporting" the enemy?[/QUOTE]
no but you'd certainly be dishonorably discharged.
military has a whole different set of rules
[QUOTE=butre;51251618]the only place where intention has historically been a major factor in sentencing is murder where if you accidentally kill someone, it's manslaughter instead. elsewhere, intent has always been irrelevant. "but officer, I didn't mean to shoplift" or "I got this weed accidentally" would never fly in court.[/QUOTE]
wasn't intent a huge part of how Clinton got off, according to Comey?
[QUOTE=butre;51251618]the only place where intention has historically been a major factor in sentencing is murder where if you accidentally kill someone, it's manslaughter instead. elsewhere, intent has always been irrelevant. "but officer, I didn't mean to shoplift" or "I got this weed accidentally" would never fly in court.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's wrong. Intent has always been a legal requirement for guilt in legal proceedings.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea[/url]
It's also the difference between criminal courts and civil courts. A criminal court requires guilty intent that is also 'beyond reasonable doubt' in order to be convicted, while a civil court case only requires guilty action and there is a 'Preponderance of the evidence'.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence[/url]
Preponderance of the evidence
[QUOTE]The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. The standard is satisfied if there is greater than fifty percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[8] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.[9][/QUOTE]
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
[QUOTE]This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings and when considering aggravating circumstances in criminal proceedings. It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.[/QUOTE]
So if Hillary Clinton stole your car and you wanted her to pay back the damages, you would go to Judge Judy and attempt to prove that it is more likely that Hillary Clinton stole your car than not.
If you wanted to prove that Hillary Clinton committed treason, you would go to the Supreme Court judge and you would need enough evidence to prove that she did it beyond any reasonable doubt, and you would also need to prove that she intended to do so beyond reasonable doubt.
in theory, yeah, but give me an example other than murder or apparently now treason where intent can be a deciding factor
[QUOTE]adding that the Clinton Foundation has taken money from countries such as Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE]
Is it suddenly illegal for charities to accept money from other countries? At the very least it's still far less shady than your charity not even being considered legally valid and using the donated money for your own taxes.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;51249783]There was a thread in GD but the mods have their own list[/QUOTE]
I think they have their own thread for it. I forgot to bookmark it so I don't even know where I made it but I Toxxed that Clinton would win or something like that awhile back (if oneof the mods could link me, I'd appreciate it actually) and shortly afterwards saw that a mod quoted me in the moderator's forum in the ticker.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
