The prosecution shall lay out his evidence, then the defense will go. Then Congress shall vote. 2/3 to convict on mod abuse.

Guilty

Big Brother would be proud.

-15 social credit for the conjugation “would be,” implying that Big Brother is not with us.

+15 would have been awarded for “Big Brother IS proud.”

Please remember for next time 🇨🇳

Yall have way to much free time on your hands

Fr

We could go on all day, but I’m done with arguments if IG is.

Mm-k

61bkmj.gif (click to show)
61bkoq.gif (click to show)
61bkqz.gif (click to show)

[Defense team sets up shop]

[This is not a direct response to IG’s statements, but a separate and independent argument]

IncognitoGuy, as President, has brought impeachment charges against OP, a Congressmember of CSP, a leading opposition party. He also wants to bring charges against SurlyKong, also of Common Sense Party. He’s made arguments here that allude to the potential for impeaching Envoy and RichardChill, also in Congress. By the end of this trial, he’ll probably get annoyed with my legal defense of OP and find some threadbare justification to impeach me (I’m also on Congress).

Do you see where this is going? The practice of sitting Presidents impeaching opposition Congressmembers is inherently undemocratic and is an alternative means for IG to try to bully Congress into submission now that it is proportionally allocated and he can’t stack Congress with his own supporters. This threatens political independence, and is why I intend to offer this impeachment trial record itself as evidence for IG’s own impeachment.

Impeachment is about abuse of power. Congressmembers don’t have true power. They only have the ability to float proposals and cast votes. They don’t appoint Cabinet members, they aren’t responsible for “defense,” they don’t mod the stream. To be honest, the impeachment of Congressmembers is dumb, a waste of time and effort. As much as many of us didn’t like IG, and impeached him when he last was VP, we *didn’t* impeach him after he lost the October election and went to Congress. That would have been needlessly vindictive. In a properly-designed democratic system, winners don’t take *all* the power.

That’s the situation we have here — a sore winner (IG) hostile to sharing even some power with certain opposition Congresspeople.

I would actually recommend amending the Constitution to provide that *only* officials directly elected on the ballot (President, Vice-President, Head of Congress, Head of Senate) be subject to impeachment.

OP’s situation is a bit different since he’s a site mod — so he can mod the PRESIDENTS stream anyway. But the impeachment can’t strip him of that status. All it can do is depose him from Congress. For the reasons I’ve already stated, that’s an assault upon the political independence of Congress.

Does that mean there’s no recourse to site mod abuse? No, you can submit a feedback/speak with a global mod. I can guarantee there’s not been evidence shown here against OP that would remotely convince a global mod to overrule him.

Don't you get to chose your replacement Congress members

Says the party that calls any IG supporter an alt

OlympianProduct impeachment reasons:

Repeatedly targeting a single user by spamming kissing images completely unrelated to the stream, despite that user repeatedly requesting for him to stop:
https://imgflip.com/i/5rlygx?nerp=1635131108#com15056662
https://imgflip.com/i/5trc0a
https://imgflip.com/i/5wedgn?nerp=1638503278#com15847446
https://imgflip.com/i/5vua18?nerp=1638503354#com15762131
https://imgflip.com/i/5vua18?nerp=1638503354#com15762177
https://imgflip.com/i/5zs6q0?nerp=1641292772#com16441141
https://imgflip.com/i/5fjtfn?nerp=1641292872
https://imgflip.com/i/5vggxr?nerp=1641292816
https://imgflip.com/i/5xo2q7#com16051300
https://imgflip.com/i/5xnuvi#com16050447
https://imgflip.com/i/5xnwtw?nerp=1641293493#com16057957

And if those examples count as TOS violations, shouldn't this as well? https://imgflip.com/i/5ozhgb?nerp=1641293614#com14627683

Deleted my comments because I called him "bodoh": https://i.imgflip.com/5zz5nm.jpg
Proof OP deleted them: https://i.imgflip.com/5zz5so.jpg
And yet OP himself actually called me a "bodoh" right here: https://imgflip.com/i/5qhdku?nerp=1641293578#com14876620 (possible the most damning piece of evidence I have here)

So did Envoy: https://imgflip.com/i/5o8eao?nerp=1641293590#com14789244
https://imgflip.com/i/5r381b?nerp=1641293564#com14980855
https://imgflip.com/i/5o8eao?nerp=1641293591#com14788688
https://imgflip.com/i/5o8eao?nerp=1641293590#com14788859

And Richard too: https://imgflip.com/i/5px4o9?nerp=1641293593#com14780846

Neither of them got comment timers though...funny how that works...

Abusing power to target that same user with unjustified comment deletions and lengthy posting timers despite that content not violating the site Terms of Use:
https://i.imgflip.com/5zz4v6.jpg
(Proof it was OlympianProduct who deleted them: https://i.imgflip.com/5zz4xq.jpg)

Misleading Congress (intentionally placing an article that forbids the creation of any future Constitutions, which hardly any Congressmen noticed, and those who have now discovered this have since expressed their regret at being misled into voting for it).

Attempted to restrict the right for users to ban trolls: https://imgflip.com/i/5zs6q0

Falsely accusing me of hating LGBT people: https://imgflip.com/i/5pwoy1?nerp=1641293594#com14779542

Falsely accusing another user of being anti-Catholic (despite that user being anti-Catholic himself): https://imgflip.com/i/5r50ft (and no I did not call OP anti-Catholic; only Oliver Cromwell).

1. Kissing memes and/or memes depicting gay people

You assert without proving that such images are “unrelated” to the stream. PRESIDENTS stream is a freewheeling stream that touches upon both real-world politics and fictional “Imgflip politics.” The stream contains all kinds of topical and untopical content, like all of Firestar’s shitposts. Wiser mods than you have concluded that cracking down on “irrelevant” content is basically unworkable.

Kissing has to do with free expression. Movies/cartoons with characters depicted kissing are a foundational part of our culture (which is where *all* memes derive from, ultimately). G-rated movies that are fine to show to 3-year-olds are certainly appropriate for the 13+ age audience of PRESIDENTS stream and Imgflip generally.

We’re also a politically and sexuality-diverse stream, with conservative and liberal, male and female, straight and LGBTQ memers, and every combination thereof. That plus the ongoing real-world political salience of LGBTQ issues — discrimination, bullying, equal status under law, etc. — makes LGBTQ content (and depictions of LGBTQ people) hands-down relevant for this stream.

The fact that you’re triggered by such benign content and asked him to stop posting it is immaterial. He has the right to post it on this stream, just as much as any other LGBTQ person, or straight person for that matter, has a right to.

By the same token, your frequent objections to LGBTQ content and your own statements that “God hates f*gs” certainly permit a neutral observer to conclude that you hate gay people despite your protestations that you don’t. It’s reasonable to conclude that you simply don’t like being called out for the beliefs you espouse. Well, too bad, if you create controversy then you open yourself up to criticism. It’s OP’s free speech to call you a bigot if he feels that way, particularly where there’s solid evidence of it.

3. The CSP Constitution

You’ve characterized the passage of the CSP Constitution as somehow devious when in reality it was anything but. Debates were held. Provisions were posted for all to see, several times I believe. OP considered multiple perspectives when putting it together, including none other than the old RUP constitution, and got the buy-in of most parties and a supermajority of a properly, proportionally-allocated Congress. The provision on irrevocability was even separately voted on, as I recall.

Yes, by its own terms, this Constitution is irrevocable. Which in real life, all Constitutions purport to be.

That said — if you really, really, *really* wanted to replace the CSP Constitution, *and* you got Scar to agree to nullify its durability clause, *and* you got a supermajority of the current Congress to pass a new Constitution, then you could still undo it.

Problem is you know you can’t do that — since Conservative Party relations with other parties are abysmal. You may have “won” the election, but Conservative Party is still a minority in Congress. You simply don’t have the votes to muscle through proposals the way you used to be able to under the old system where the elected President, VP, and HOC all got to handpick their favorite Congresspeople, with just a couple of seats set aside for the runners-up, which was always a strange system that didn’t exactly respect the voters’ true wishes, not to mention the concept of separation of powers. Imagine President Biden picking progressive Democratic congresspeople to represent rural Mississippi, or President Trump picking Republican congresspeople for San Francisco — that’s what the old system was like.

Well, impeaching the drafter of the CSP constitution out of spite is not a viable substitute for actually drafting, and actually creating the political consensus to pass, your own Constitution.

Passing the constitution wasn’t in any way devious let alone “treasonous” as you at one point hyperbolically described it. It was passed properly and as a matter of substance actually contains a lot of *drumroll please*… Common Sense. Yep! You guessed it!

So look at it again with unbiased eyes. Scale your ambitions back, consider amending the Constitution in some way if you really have a problem with it. I don’t think I ever heard you spell out what exactly you found objectionable about it. TBH, your idea to replace the Constitution was simply a power-grab, and it was received as such.

If he can make a better one I don't see why it couldn't pass
Key word is if

Yes, but you can change real life constitutions, but you made it impossible to alter this one.

False, the Constitution can be amended.

Please show me where it says it can be ammended, because it says it cant be revoked

Thank you

It says no amendments that contradict its current draft (meaning you basically can't do anything), so your proposal to only allow directly elected officials to be impeached probably won't happen.

"You’ve characterized the passage of the CSP Constitution as somehow devious when in reality it was anything but. Debates were held. Provisions were posted for all to see, several times I believe. OP considered multiple perspectives when putting it together, including none other than the old RUP constitution, and got the buy-in of most parties and a supermajority of a properly, proportionally-allocated Congress. The provision on irrevocability was even separately voted on, as I recall."

And yet the part restricting any future Constitutions from being made was only found out about by like 99% of users just a couple weeks ago. Huh. Funny how that works. Not exactly very openly-made is it? And half the stream was so outraged by my idea of a collaborative Constitution, which was only criticised after I won the election.

"Yes, by its own terms, this Constitution is irrevocable. Which in real life, all Constitutions purport to be."

Funny how y'all characterised the RUP Constitution as so "authoritarian" when we didn't even include anything about it was completely revokable because unlike your Nonsense Party we encourage openness and democracy.

"That said — if you really, really, *really* wanted to replace the CSP Constitution, *and* you got Scar to agree to nullify its durability clause, *and* you got a supermajority of the current Congress to pass a new Constitution, then you could still undo it."

Shame Scar will never do that because he's Scar.

"Well, impeaching the drafter of the CSP constitution out of spite is not a viable substitute for actually drafting, and actually creating the political consensus to pass, your own Constitution."

Incorrect, I'm impeaching OPea for all the reasons you're supposed to be responding to here, but ok whatever you wanna tell yourself lol

"Passing the constitution wasn’t in any way devious let alone “treasonous” as you at one point hyperbolically described it. It was passed properly and as a matter of substance actually contains a lot of *drumroll please*… Common Sense. Yep! You guessed it!"

Hold on lemme just copy & past: And yet the part restricting any future Constitutions from being made was only found out about by like 99% of users just a couple weeks ago. Huh. Funny how that works. Not exactly very openly-made is it? And half the stream was so outraged by my idea of a collaborative Constitution, which was only criticised after I won the election.

Correction: You whipped some people into a fake scandal over the CSP Constitution, omitting the fact that Constitutions around the world are irrevocable by default, and there’s nothing wrong with stating so explicitly. Once I pointed that out, the “scandal” died down.

That said — politics provides a way to overturn Constitutions. If the people want a new Constitution, they can have a new Constitution regardless of what the old one says. France has had something like 5 Constitutions ever since the end of its monarchy. The U.S. is actually a global outlier in having the world’s long-lasting original Constitution, though it has been amended many times in significant ways, such as by abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

If you want a new Constitution, you’ll have to go to Congress. Till then, the CSP Constitution is in full effect.

The fact OP helped draft a Constitution isn’t grounds for impeachment.

"Correction: You whipped some people into a fake scandal over the CSP Constitution, omitting the fact that Constitutions around the world are irrevocable by default, and there’s nothing wrong with stating so explicitly. Once I pointed that out, the “scandal” died down."

And incorrect correction? lol

"That said — politics provides a way to overturn Constitutions. If the people want a new Constitution, they can have a new Constitution regardless of what the old one says. France has had something like 5 Constitutions ever since the end of its monarchy. The U.S. is actually a global outlier in having the world’s long-lasting original Constitution, though it has been amended many times in significant ways, such as by abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote."

Again, it's a shame Scar won't allow that because he's Scar.

"The fact OP helped draft a Constitution isn’t grounds for impeachment."

Correct but that's not the charge so please keep things relevant and don't be like OPea.

2. The “Bodoh” thing

You assert without proving that the linked comments were deleted simply for containing this word (which, I believe it was mentioned at one point, is Singaporean slang for idiot — or something like that?) Anywho, bodoh is clearly not a word that on its own triggers a comment-deletion, since OP and others used it themselves. It’s not an insult on par with the worst slurs, some of which you’ve used yourself.

More likely, in these threads, looking at the entire context, you were being unconstructive and harassing to the point that some amount of mod action was deemed necessary to keep the thread and the stream generally from descending into a catfight.

You’ve also brought evidence that Envoy and RichardChill have both used the word bodoh. Well? Do you want to bring impeachment charges against them too? Do you want to impeach yourself for having been the first one to use it?

This “bodoh” thing is a perfect example of how, in this impeachment, you’re trying to create a standard of conduct to apply to others that you’re unwilling to live up to yourself, and that you go out of your way to make it as difficult as possible for others to live up to by your own habit of name-calling them.

"You assert without proving that the linked comments were deleted simply for containing this word (which, I believe it was mentioned at one point, is Singaporean slang for idiot — or something like that?) Anywho, bodoh is clearly not a word that on its own triggers a comment-deletion, since OP and others used it themselves. It’s not an insult on par with the worst slurs, some of which you’ve used yourself."

And yet I've been deleted for saying "bodoh".

"More likely, in these threads, looking at the entire context, you were being unconstructive and harassing to the point that some amount of mod action was deemed necessary to keep the thread and the stream generally from descending into a catfight."

Incorrect. I didn't harass anyone, and if that's considered harassing, as shown with my evidence, half the stuff I've been targeted with should be deleted. You know full well I've gotten a lot of stick on here not just from users attacking me, but also the site mods who enable this anarcho-tyrannical system (learn more about anarcho-tyranny here: youtube.com/watch?v=sIZ2ahpPYHU)

"You’ve also brought evidence that Envoy and RichardChill have both used the word bodoh. Well? Do you want to bring impeachment charges against them too? Do you want to impeach yourself for having been the first one to use it?"

No, bodoh. My point was that if they're allowed to say I should as well.

"This “bodoh” thing is a perfect example of how, in this impeachment, you’re trying to create a standard of conduct to apply to others that you’re unwilling to live up to yourself, and that you go out of your way to make it as difficult as possible for others to live up to by your own habit of name-calling them."

Other way around. I'm being asked to live up to a standard of conduct those same folks are unwilling to live up to themselves.

DOCTAH

Matt Smith was a solid Doctor. I prefer David Tennant as an actor, but the screenwriting for the Eleventh Doctor was inventive and excellent.

/endrant

For once we can agree.

Honestly imo he's my third favourite. I don't prefer him mostly because he just is, quite a bit dithering. His acting is great though, and you can tell his personality shines through.

Jodie, on the other hand, plays how the doctor would be as a real person. Boring and constantly doing DIY and explaining unnecessary things.

I haven’t watched any of Jodie tbh. I know, shame on me, but I couldn’t make it through the Twelfth Doctor since Peter Capaldi and the writing for his seasons weren’t my cup of tea. I should just skip ahead. :)

I loved Peter Capaldi as the doctor

Same. The swagger, the outfits, the BASHING CLARA!!!! Loved it all haha

He was good, the writing less so.

Aw hen Bill came around, her personality was literally "Lesbain". After the first episode went by, the writers evidently ran out of ideas, and instead made sure Bill said every episode "oH yEaH IM gAe yA KnOW". It was so much, it even made me sick of her :/

How so?

Clara and Bill sucked.

nah

yah

Yeah, I miss when Doctor Who was good.

Honestly, the second half of Peter's go as the doctor, the writing went down the drain, and then the same, not-the-best writers completely f**k up 13 *cough* Chibnal *cough cough* I've considered taking a break too, lol.

Couldn't agree more.

And the writers gradually rubbed in more political things, more wokeism, etc, which basically ruined everything. The Rosa Parks episode was half-arsed and we never got closure.