If I watch something funny I’ll quote it with my friends, but I wouldn’t share a clip of me and my friends if I wanted to share the joke with someone. I’d share a clip of the actual joke.

It’s not a homage, it’s just the exact same joke.

Stealing in the sense that it’s the exact same joke.

It’s like a YouTuber creating a ‘reaction’ video that adds nothing but their face in the corner of the screen. Adding a link to the original video doesn’t suddenly make it reasonable.

Two muffins are baking in an oven. One muffin turns to the other and says “sure is hot in here isn’t it?”
To which the other muffin replies “Holy crap! A talking muffin!”

Changing the muffins to cookies would not make it a different joke.

I don’t know if I’d call it a paraphrase when it’s using 90% the exact same words.

without it’s original meaning being altered.

I think you mean “without its original meaningfully being altered.”

Yes, my comment wasn’t about online casinos but about the people who think they have a right to tell others how to live their lives.

Who’s “they the people”? I don’t know much about the gambling industry the internet but if it’s anything like any other industry place then it’s not a centralized monolith but many independent business people.

That was because Gene Rodenberry wouldn’t let them have inter-personal conflict

Stories are a lot easier to write if you don’t have to come up with an ending.

It’s like Spiderman. Someone really needs to do a movie about how that all started, I don’t think it’s been done before.

Or plan in advance and have some protection?

“I put the computer in the trash” is pretty easy to replicate.

“okay… What happens if I do this?”

Love the extra work you went through in order to not have to click the mouse button. :p

Humans are wild.

Of course, when pressed to make an actual point you’re taking your ball an going home.

The most hilarious part is that you just can’t let this go

Right, You’ve been going at this just as long as I have but I have the problem.

It’s always projection.

straw manning

Fallacy fallacy dude. “Strawman” is not some magic word that makes criticisms of your argument disappear. The point of recognizing fallacies is that it makes them easy to rebut, not that if you say the right magic phrase your critics disappear.

In the case of a supposed Strawman fallacy it’s not enough to say “Strawman” and plug your ears. If you believe your argument is being misrepresented you restate what your actual argument is. So far you haven’t presented any argument for “all politicians have definitely done crimes” other than your assumptions that it is true. Me pointing out your Begging the Point and Appeal to Popularity is not a Strawman.

They don’t just spin a big wheel to decide whom to look into. Somebody decides to look into a particular person, and then they find things that are actionable and investigate them.

So close: somebody decides there is evidence of a crime, investigates the crime, and follows the evidence until it leads to a person.

If you think there’s nothing legally actionable on any US politician

Again, you saying “trust me bro, it’s totally there” is not legally actionable evidence. If you think it is I have a Unicorn to sell you, it’s invisible and can be there tomorrow.

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it?

You don’t investigate people you don’t like hoping crimes will fall out. You investigate crimes and see what people it leads to.

“They’re totally criminals, trust me bro.” Is not legally actionable or Trump would already be in prison.

And once again, if the justice system starts looking into other politicians, they will also find sufficient evidence for potential crime because Trump is not an outlier.

And once again we come to the topic of evidence. There is evidence of Trump committing crimes, hence the trials. There is not evidence for other politicians other than “because you say so” which is an even weaker fallacy than an Appeal to Popularity. I will not entertain your vague claims with nothing to back to them up.

Believing this requires thinking that Trump is somehow uniquely criminal.

The entire criminal system is based on the idea that people can be “uniquely criminal”. Otherwise everyone would be in jail or there wouldn’t be crimes.

If you think that investigations into Trump were started for anything other than political reasons then you’re an incredibly naive individual.

The investigations into Trump stated with “we are investigating this specific crime” and the charges that came from it were related to the specific crime being investigated. They didn’t start investigating Trump in general to see what crimes fell out.

Does Trump have specific crimes he wants to investigate people for?

The legal spotlight wasn’t put on Trump because people don’t like him. There was evidence of a crime so the spotlight was put on the potential crime, and Trump was there standing in the spotlight.

That’s the difference. Trump wants to put the spotlight on people because he doesn’t like them, and hopes to find a crime (or make one up) by doing so.

Trump wants to investigate people until he finds crimes.
Trump’s charges came from people investigating crimes until they found the person responsible.
If you can’t tell the difference there’s no helping you.

The fact that you think your previous post has any value speaks volumes of the low quality of the rest of your posts.

Either Trump is an aberration, and he’s being investigated because he’s uniquely guilty,

And we’re making progress! We’ve acknowledged at least the possibility that Trump is more guilty than everyone else! Nothing in your post dismisses this possibility but you seem to forget it exists in the very next sentence.

So let’s not get distracted here, try to focus just a little bit longer: if Trump is a “uniquely guilty aberration” that would mean…
a) the investigation into him was completely valid.
b) his investigation into other people would be invalid and just done for revenge. Or
c) all of the above?