Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
Big Pharma may hope that vaccines make them more liked but at end of the day they usually just can't help themselves and they probably end in worst position than where they started.
-
1
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Malcador said:
Hannock saying Brexit was responsible for the quick approval (EU is slower, therefore worse), was pretty funny. Health Canada's going to decide on the Pfizer vaccine in 2 weeks or so, although debatable where we are in line to get it.
Funny thing is that all the EU members are free to give medicines and vaccinations emergency approval instead of waiting EMA's approval, but as far all the members states have decided not to do so and just blame EU that their citizens need to wait vaccination.
So Hannock may be right that UK's quick approval was because of Brexit, not because it made bureaucracy faster but that they weren't able to use EU as excuse for the wait and buckled under pressure to approve the vaccine even if they can't say its safe with 100% certainty.
-
5 hours ago, Zoraptor said:
I already said it was a crime to lie to police here in certain circumstances and listed a few. What you cannot do is find out someone is lying, get them to sign a statement with that lie while interviewing them as a witness, then charge them with lying. If they're a suspect they have to be cautioned and you cannot charge someone for lying to protect themselves. The woman in the article was (effectively) providing a (false) alibi for someone else. Not at all applicable to Flynn, unless the US was planning to throw out the Vienna Convention and arrest Kislyak.
In my understanding you cannot do that in USA either.
According to that article police didn't know who had hurt the child when they charged said woman of lying them. And I don't think person is providing alibi when they hide existence of person in question from police. As woman brought child to hospital where doctors called police because child injures show that they were caused by another human. Then woman in question tells police that child has been with her whole time and she doesn't know how child has sustained the injuries. Then during investigation police finds out that child had been in care of someone else than woman in question for sometime, which lead police to charge her for lying to them, even though they had at that time determined who had hurt the child.
Flynn case isn't really that different, even if its more political
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Zoraptor said:
His argument is that lying to the police is not (inherently) a crime in most places outside the US, ie if the police asked you in Finland if you stole a car and you say 'no' do you get arrested and charged with lying to the police along with stealing the car if they think you did it?
Suspect of crime can't be arrested or charged for lying to police about crime they have accused of committing
But if I am asked did Zoraptor stole a car and say 'no' , when I know that you have stolen the car in question I will commit crime even if I lie because I paid Zoraptor to stole the car in question.
EDIT: It seems that also in New Zealand it is crime to lie to police
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/93962601/woman-admits-making-false-statement-to-police
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328799.html
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Skarpen said:
What is even the point of replying to you if you don't even read what is being replied? That was never in question.
You are backpedaling and running in circles.
"And if by your own words he was lying to avoid charges"
It was comment to this claim that I have never made
You were claiming that FBI were investigating Flynn because of some crime they suspected him to have committed and your evidence was that FBI was investigating him, which is why I pointed out that FBI investigates all the members of the government, because that is their job.
I see that you have hard time to come up with actual arguments, but you could at least be honest about it
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Skarpen said:
You are making no sense. If FBI was looking into the differences between transcript and what was presented to VP, then what would you call those actions? They were making an investigation. And if they were investigation what Flynn said to VP, then who was Flynn in this investigation if not a suspect? And if by your own words he was lying to avoid charges then clearly he knew he was a suspect and could end up with charges. So it's clearly a situation I'm talking from the beginning, a law that penalizes lying to FBI is taking away the right to defense for suspect/accused.
Yeah Federal Bureau of Investigation 's job is to investigate things. Their job is also investigate backgrounds of all the members of government in order to ensure that there is no surprises there that could cause problems for the nation
suspect of what?
avoid what chargers?
again suspect of what?
and what charges?
They investigated if Russia had something over Flynn, as he had done opposite to what he told VP to have done. But giving false information to VP in briefing is not crime, which is why Flynn was only forced to resign.
Flynn himself pleaded guilty of lying to FBI in court, you don't need to take my word, just his own words.
-
1 minute ago, Skarpen said:
Information given to banks etc. is a different matter and lying to those are covered by specific laws in criminal codes. So that's a separate issue. As I stated before lying to the police is only criminal if you are a witness. And for example in Poland accused/suspect doesn't give testimony, as I stated above. So that is also a separate issue and not to be bundled together by any means.
From what I heard you have to specifically plead the fifth and in a specific way if you don't want to answer a question when questioned by lawmakers in USA. At least according to this guy:
Don't Talk to the Police Redux (James Duane) - YouTubeIt is not really, issue is same knowingly giving false statements to officials.
Flynn was not actually accused or suspected of crime when he was interviewed by FBI, he was interviewed because he had told Vice President Pence different account of what he had talked with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak than were in transcripts of the Flynn's call with Kislyak. Later on Flynn plead guilty to purposefully lying FBI during that interview when in order to avoid charges of illegally receiving money from foreign power.
Pleading fifth comes to play when court or investigation panel compels person to give testimony and person knows that said testimony would incriminate them, either forcing them lie under oath or revealing crime that they have committed. People who plead fifth aren't usually those who have been accused of crime, but people who have called to give witness or other testimony in the case and case may not even be a criminal case per se.
-
5 hours ago, Skarpen said:
Yes. That's where we started from. I understand it's a crime in US. I criticized it being a crime.
If I understand correctly 5th amendment only works if you specifically plead the 5th and it only allows you to be silent. Which is a greatly flawed design in my opinion
Giving false testimony is crime in most of the countries and not just for police but also for banks etc. organizations when you swear that information that you have given is truth for example when you apply for bank account, loan or even phone subscription etc.
You don't need to plead the 5th, 5th protections means that FBI, police or any official has no right to torture you or threaten you with prison or any other punishment if you don't give testimony that incriminates you.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Skarpen said:
So can you or cannot you lie to the FBI when they investigate you?
5th amendment gives protection against officials compelling you to give answers that would incriminate you, but purposefully lying to officials when you have vowed to tell truth is a crime
-
1
-
1
-
-
Lying to FBI is only crime in US, as other countries don't recognize FBI's jurisdiction over their citizens
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Chairchucker said:
noun
the person who holds the highest position in a national government:That isn't very accurate definition of head of state, considering how big sunk of head is states in world are just figure heads, like European monarchs. Especially Queen Elizabeth who is head of state also in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and United Kingdom without having position in their governments.
Also in many countries where president is official head of state, president does not have any or minor governmental power like for example Germany, Finland, Albanian, Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominica, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malta, Moldova, Nepal, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine and Vanuatu.
Countries where head of state has major governmental powers are in minority in number, but not necessarily in influence they hold in world
-
28 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:
What is this?
Twitter suppressing loved leader's speech
-
1
-
-
Risk of new vaccines depend more how well its working method is know, when we are speaking 5-10 years approval times.
Like for example two new flu vaccines are developed on markets each year, because how fast influenza viruses are changing and they are approved without long period testing because they are based on well known methods.
-
-
4 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:
I think the most common case is, where there are votes for a POTUS candiate only. Again its late for me and I have better things to do than to track every single story related to US election.
I like to conduct thought experiments and think on what ifs scenarios to reset my brain from daily work with numbers, algorithms, processes and people working with them.
But if there are for example miss counting because of tabulation machine for example, that should effect all elections not only presidential race
-
2 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:
AOC is a freshman, soon to be sophomore, representative in the House for about 700,000 people in New York. It is strange how much attention she gets from both sides of the aisle in this country.
Funnily AOC has national level visibility and power to drive her issues through mainly because of people who oppose her
-
1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:
I think some people were calling what they deemed unusually odd discrepancies between votes for specific senate and house candidates and the votes for specific candidades. It was some time ago, so can't say what happened to those claims, as I have not been that invested in the result.
Has any candidate in those elections disputed results? Because they should if there has been clear voter fraud in their are or thousands votes are given to wrong candidate
-
I find it interesting that local, senate and house elections are accepted without law suits, even though votes on them are casted with same ballots that are disputed in presidential race. It is like only parts of ballots are fake.
-
Number of votes that move from one party to another in recount have been max ~300 votes in past and there is no indication that this time would be different.
But same thing would happen as would had if Clinton had won after recount, winner of election would change.
But change for that happening when there needs to be multiple over 10k vote changes is smaller than winning 10 times in row in lottery, because counting systems that states use are very reliable and changes happen usually only in ballots that have been counted by hand for some reason or another.
-
1 hour ago, Skarpen said:
care to explain what the ruling of judge Alito about votes in PA means?
Not Gromnir, but ruling has little impact, as ballots that arrived after election day 8 PM were already separated from others and have not been included in current tally and USPS reported that they had processed less than 5k of those ballots, so as things currently stand they don't impact outcome of PA's result regardless of decision if they should or should not included in final result. Ruling will only move day when PA is able to give final count.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, pmp10 said:
Why? Do you have a way to stop them from ageing?
Aside from the obvious one I mean.They are likely more concerned about Texas.
In political environment where people vote party over policies, fifth of the voting population heavily favors opposite party and said fifth will continue to vote for next 60-70 years. So it looks like quite advantage for democrats in at least couple next elections until they again piss of their voters
-
49 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:
They control the senate and got over 65 million votes, so I think they will be alright.
Votes by young people (18-29, who made 17% of total votes with 53% participation) predict some problems for republicans in future
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22020115/youth_vote_choice_map___Nov_6.png)
-
1
-
-
Macro has advocated tougher immigration policies whole time he has been president
Last year he speak against France taking refugees and passed measures to make immigration to France more difficult seek baring refugees accessing medical care. Also he brought up immigration to EU multiple times in EU's meetings in seeking to get common immigration policy in EU and looking ways to prevent immigrates coming from Africa.
2018 his government passed law to decrease asylum processing time to 90 days and doubling time detention time in asylum cases from 45 days to 90 days.
2017 Macron blamed France poor economy on France refugee policy
and so on.
I am not sure why people think that Macron is some how pro refugee / immigrant or even liberal in American political spectrum sense. He is liberal only when he is compared to Marine Le Pen and co, but there is reason why people in France have protested against Macron from get-go after they wake up from their ecstasy that Le Pen didn't won the election and old parties were given finger.
-
11 minutes ago, Skarpen said:
I don't think you understand what C-SPAN nad NPR are. You might want to read up about them.
C-SPAN is broadcasting organisation dedicated to broadcast all US government events and messages and it is mainly funded by those broadcasting companies that you want to be forced to broadcast US government's message.
NPR is meant to be free public radio, which is why it gets part of its funding from local and federal governments. Because of its role to broadcast governments messages and government sanctioned educational programs.
Coronavirus: Triple Edition
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
They have not done nothing to me (except money), my statement was more general, as when you make profit on life saving drugs and vaccinations especially during global pandemic you aren't making people like you even if you are producing thing that saves them, because people feel that you are profiting on their need. And optics don't get better when pharma companies get public money and protection from litigation in case they have screwed with their supposed cure.
I mean it is just business where you make people hate you and bigger the crisis more people will resent you for making profit on people's lives