Elerond

same as Clintons Clinton's had business that took money from foreign powers when Bill was president?

ehh well, so someone is concerned about 'ethics' of previously business mans advisor paying for lobbing while Hillary already being part of government is getting paid by Saudi is not seen as unethical? oh cmon... You mean that they are concerned of private businesses that current president has with foreign power. whole text is in past tense so I am not sure what d you mean I highlighted ethics concerns mentioned in the article Again, all this stuff happen when he was NOT part of government. Are there any records of that lobbing happening now? You are saying that meeting that has not happened has already happened? See this line "This spring, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., will host a three-day event co-hosted by a business group." Here even with more detail "What: The 36th Annual Conference on U.S.-Turkey Relations is scheduled for May 21-23." And who is giving money to Trump "Who: The Turkey-U.S. Business Council, known as TAIK, and the American Turkish Council are the sponsors. The former group is chaired by a Turkish-American businessman, Ekim Alptekin, who has ties to the Turkish government." "More about who: Alptekin also is the founder of Inovo BV, a company that paid Flynn's consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, $530,000 for lobbying work that may have benefited the Turkish government." And then there is this "But ethics experts have concerns about special interest groups, lobbyists and foreign governments bringing their business to Trump, who has a dual role as president and innkeeper. These critics point to the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting benefits from foreign powers." And here you have in more detail what article says about ethics concerns. Still not sure whats that big deal here, its not like lobbying started with Trump and its not like he done anything wrong in this regard either He is taking money from foreign power, which is against U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause according those who have expressed their concerns about ethics.

ehh well, so someone is concerned about 'ethics' of previously business mans advisor paying for lobbing while Hillary already being part of government is getting paid by Saudi is not seen as unethical? oh cmon... You mean that they are concerned of private businesses that current president has with foreign power. whole text is in past tense so I am not sure what d you mean I highlighted ethics concerns mentioned in the article Again, all this stuff happen when he was NOT part of government. Are there any records of that lobbing happening now? You are saying that meeting that has not happened has already happened? See this line "This spring, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., will host a three-day event co-hosted by a business group." Here even with more detail "What: The 36th Annual Conference on U.S.-Turkey Relations is scheduled for May 21-23." And who is giving money to Trump "Who: The Turkey-U.S. Business Council, known as TAIK, and the American Turkish Council are the sponsors. The former group is chaired by a Turkish-American businessman, Ekim Alptekin, who has ties to the Turkish government." "More about who: Alptekin also is the founder of Inovo BV, a company that paid Flynn's consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, $530,000 for lobbying work that may have benefited the Turkish government." And then there is this "But ethics experts have concerns about special interest groups, lobbyists and foreign governments bringing their business to Trump, who has a dual role as president and innkeeper. These critics point to the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting benefits from foreign powers." And here you have in more detail what article says about ethics concerns.

ehh well, so someone is concerned about 'ethics' of previously business mans advisor paying for lobbing while Hillary already being part of government is getting paid by Saudi is not seen as unethical? oh cmon... You mean that they are concerned of private businesses that current president has with foreign power. whole text is in past tense so I am not sure what d you mean I highlighted ethics concerns mentioned in the article

ehh well, so someone is concerned about 'ethics' of previously business mans advisor paying for lobbing while Hillary already being part of government is getting paid by Saudi is not seen as unethical? oh cmon... You mean that they are concerned of private businesses that current president has with foreign power.

Speaking about Turkish enrichment http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/21/520183360/at-trumps-d-c-hotel-a-u-s-turkey-relations-conference-stirs-up-ethics-questions?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews At Trump's D.C. Hotel, A U.S.-Turkey Relations Conference Stirs Up Ethics Questions This spring, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., will host a three-day event co-hosted by a business group. That's not unusual. But here's what is: The group's chair founded the company that paid President Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, for lobbying work that may have benefited the Turkish government. This mashup of money involving Turks, Flynn and Trump has concerned ethics experts who worry about a "pay-to-play" atmosphere in Washington. Here are the basics: Alptekin also is the founder of Inovo BV, a company that paid Flynn's consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, $530,000 for lobbying work that may have benefited the Turkish government. Ruya Eichelberger, a spokesperson for the American Turkish Council, says the dates when the organization wanted to hold the conference this year weren't open at the Ritz-Carlton. They did their first walk-through at the Trump hotel in 2015, she says, while it was under construction, and booked it in October 2016. The previous annual conference took place at the Ritz-Carlton from Oct. 30 to Nov. 1, 2016. But ethics experts have concerns about special interest groups, lobbyists and foreign governments bringing their business to Trump, who has a dual role as president and innkeeper. These critics point to the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting benefits from foreign powers.

https://www.indy100.com/article/africa-trade-meeting-african-visa-denied-us-travel-ban-global-economic-development-summit-7637666 There was an Africa trade meeting with no Africans because all their visas got denied Each year, delegations from Africa meet with officials and business leaders in the US for the African Global Economic and Development (AGED) Summit. This year's event took place at the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles. But unfortunately, one crucial aspect was missing from the summit - any Africans. None of the invited delegates were able to attend, due to being denied a visa at the very last minute. Mary Flowers, chair of the summit, told VOA that during the previous three summits around 40 per cent of attendees were denied visas. She estimated that around 100 guests, from Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and South Africa, were unable to attend.

Chanters have reminded me from start of Väinämöinen and other poem signers, whose magical voices can do all sort of things, in Finnish national epic Kalevala.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275 It really must be great

People that come wearing masks, daggers, pepper prays, and clubs aren't there to listen or make people listen.

is this real Yeah it is real

Don't think Pence was required to have a security clearance as governor of Indiana. Plus AOL email is still a hell of a lot more secure than Hillary's private server. Which is probably why his account was hacked, where Hilary's server was not

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/mike-pence-private-email/98637782/ Pence used personal email for state business — and was hacked Vice President Mike Pence routinely used a private email account to conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues. Emails released to The Indianapolis Star, part of the USA TODAY Network, in response to a public records request show Pence communicated via his personal AOL account with top advisers on topics ranging from security gates at the governor’s residence to the state’s response to terror attacks across the globe. In one email, Pence’s top state homeland security adviser relayed an update from the FBI regarding the arrests of several men on federal terror-related charges.

They were tweeting hour ago that it is 12 hours to game's release. So I don't think that there is any delay in digital versions as they are distributed by Steam and GOG

By our society's standards there isn't situation where relationship between 30 year old and 14 year old can be anything else than abusive, mainly because we don't see that 14 year old is capable to understand what such relationship means especially if it involves sex. Also because there is massive difference in ability how much 30 years old self determine and control things compared to 14 years old, this power difference alone is seen to cause unavoidable abuse in such relationship and when you add fact that 30 years old is also said 14 year olds teachers power difference just becomes wider because said 14 years old is in position of trust with said 30 years old, meaning that said 14 years old's ability determine if said 30 years old abuses them is seen greatly obscured, because they are in position where they are told that they should not question said 30 years old. Such relationship is seen indefensible for said 30 years old because they are in position where they can easily manipulate and control said 14 years old.

So which character archetype trope you want this character to fulfill poll? I would say that if hope that in case that funding goal is reached that Obsidian will make her bit more complicate personality than this poll suggest.

2015 there was 32 477 people that seek asylum from Finland from these 14 656 were denied and sent away, most left voluntary, 7806 got refugee status, in 2128 cases person left from country before their processing was over, 3252 cases application expired before process was over. 4635 cases is still without resolution. EDIT: Added cases without resolution So you basically agree that most of 'refugees' are actually not refugees even in Finland (8000 given status against 25000 claiming it). Now imagine how that ratio looks in Germany, not to mention France or Italy... All refugees are refugees, but most asylum seekers aren't in situation that merits refugee status. EDIT: Refugee is person that has received asylum, meaning that they are determined to need international protection. Asylum seeker is person who seeks asylum and therefore to be recognized as person who needs international protection aka refugee. In media and internet and in general speech people use these terms so loosely that it is often difficult to determine who they actually are speaking about.

2015 there was 32 477 people that seek asylum from Finland from these 14 656 were denied and sent away, most left voluntary, 7806 got refugee status, in 2128 cases person left from country before their processing was over, 3252 cases application expired before process was over. 4635 cases is still without resolution. EDIT: Added cases without resolution

Last year over 10k EDIT: Most leave voluntary

But question was about people that are determined in case of deportation to more likely to die because of persecution, war or some other cause known before hand than live to die from old age aka legally determined refugees. Meaning that "will" is more probable in their case than mere "possibility". yeah sure, all of the refugees are gays Homosexuality is quite rare as reason why people get refugee status (I think it was reason for less than 100 from those 40k). Usually it is political, religious, or general war in their residential area. But that don't change the fact that risk of dying in their home country is the determining factor when it comes to getting or not getting refugee status. And when that risk is lowered enough said refugees are meant to be sent back to their home countries, but in cases where people have been in Finland for decades they usually get residence permit and possibility to seek citizenship, when they lose their refugee status. We have been over this multiple times. These people usually even don't have any ID. Everyone can 'say' he is being persecuted for any reason mentioned above and you will be never able to verify such claim People that our officials can't determine to face persecution or some other form certain threat in their home country don't get refugee status. Yes there is probably some people that are able to get refugee status by lying to our officials but all the studies about subject say that if it is so it is very rare. People who seek refugee status are interviewed and investigated, by police, immigrant official, national security officials, social officials, psychologist, doctors in process that takes over a year. It isn't easy to become refugee in Finland especially if you entered here illegally without papers.

But question was about people that are determined in case of deportation to more likely to die because of persecution, war or some other cause known before hand than live to die from old age aka legally determined refugees. Meaning that "will" is more probable in their case than mere "possibility". yeah sure, all of the refugees are gays Homosexuality is quite rare as reason why people get refugee status (I think it was reason for less than 100 from those 40k). Usually it is political, religious, or general war in their residential area. But that don't change the fact that risk of dying in their home country is the determining factor when it comes to getting or not getting refugee status. And when that risk is lowered enough said refugees are meant to be sent back to their home countries, but in cases where people have been in Finland for decades they usually get residence permit and possibility to seek citizenship, when they lose their refugee status.

But question was about people that are determined in case of deportation to more likely to die because of persecution, war or some other cause known before hand than live to die from old age aka legally determined refugees. Meaning that "will" is more probable in their case than mere "possibility".

Refugees aren't never illegal, because to be refugee you need to be legally recognized as such, but asylum seekers are technically illegal until they get refugee status, residence permit for some other reason or are deported. But situation isn't all that simple because people may also have residence permit in another EU country which may or may not allow them to travel to other EU countries and if their permit don't allow them to travel they aren't counted as illegal immigrants put people that break their residence permit in another EU country and they should be returned there.

But it is rephrasing what you said "Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it." http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91622-politics-2017-part-3/page-17?do=findComment&comment=1889867 And where is the contradiction? Yeah that is the question that I am asking I think you need to be little more clear. I don't know what you mean by all of this Where is contraction between in my rephrasing and what you said? I mean you would sent 40k people with actual refugee status face near certain death (determined by officials that gave them that refugee status) instead of letting anybody in your circle get raped, how that is different from "Both the victims and attacker were asylum seekers and therefore need to be get rid off. Isn't that what people here have been campaign for? Better let them to die than let any harm to come for actual Germans (or in case of some other European country, that country's citizens)" Or would it had been better if that family had been sent back to Iraq where they would most likely had been raped and killed by ISIS fighters, not that their faith was much better in Germany.

That's sick, and no, I am against killing no matter who the person is. You are mixing deportation with lynching. And I am not against immigrants, I am against illegal immigrants and so called refugees. But I know its hard to distinguished for some people who thinks that anyone against immigration is actually nazi But it is rephrasing what you said "Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it." http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91622-politics-2017-part-3/page-17?do=findComment&comment=1889867 And where is the contradiction? Yeah that is the question that I am asking