Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Belz...]

Well, before we can move forward on this, we must define all of our terms to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Could you please provide the definition for every single word you've posted in this thread?

It really depends what you mean by "could".

 

[Belz...]

No. You provided an assertion, not an argument.

I know a poster who, confronted with this, would say that arguments could be considered a form of assertion.

Do they? Certainly not all of them.

Sure. Not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution, or global warming, or general relativity.

 

[johnny karate]

It really depends what you mean by "could".

What exactly do you mean by "depends"?

 

[Elagabalus]

When the law makes an act illegal, it must define that act. If the law doesn't define an act, then it cannot be made illegal. Did you not know this?

So again, what's the definition of collusion you want to use? Is collusion under that definition illegal? Did Trump Jr. collude under that definition? I note that you make no attempt to answer any of these questions. I think I know why you do not.

Start here on page 73:

There's a bit of debate, given the specifics. Going by the short version, campaign law forbids accepting or soliciting foreign money or other notable aid from foreign sources. Trump Jr. was fully intending to break that, given the e-mails, and Manafort and Kushner were apparently in on it directly. Fairly certainly Trump, himself, too, given his statements right after the e-mails. Supposedly, nothing of value was actually presented at the meeting itself, though, which gives a tiny bit of a defense regarding whether campaign law was actually directly broken or not.

and continues on page 74:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317528&page=74

 

[Ziggurat]

Stop it with the wordplays and platitudes. Next you'll be asking me to define "is".

The word "collude" is being used as a key part of an argument. Different people can mean the same word in different ways. It is important here to know how YOU mean it, if I am to understand your argument.

That you refuse to define one single key word is quite telling. I'm not asking you to define everything, I'm asking you to define the word being used to describe the central claim in this whole bloody mess. And you can't even do it.

There's clearly an echo chamber going on with the use of the word. Everyone critical of Trump Jr.'s meeting is using it, in immitation of each other. It's as if you think that the word itself has power, and that if you use that word, it will somehow prove you right, all by itself. But magic requires mystery, and the magic can only last so long as the word remains a mystery. So you must never, ever define it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Start here on page 73:



and continues on page 74:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317528&page=74

"Notable aid" cannot refer to simply talking to people. That would be such a clear infraction of the 1st amendment right to speech that the law could never stand, if that is the meaning it is supposed to have.

 

[Belz...]

What exactly do you mean by "depends"?

How exact do you want me to be?

 

[Ziggurat]

I know a poster who, confronted with this, would say that arguments could be considered a form of assertion.

Really? Because I don't. An argument is distinct from an assertion.

Sure. Not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution, or global warming, or general relativity.

Funny. First, you appeal to authority, then you throw authority under the bus. It's as if you have no logical basis for your position.

 

[Belz...]

That you refuse to define one single key word is quite telling.

Yes, quite telling, but not in the way you think.

Is it also quite telling when you refuse to define or support your own claims, citing various excuses, such as Obama's thick-skinned narcissism? Or does that only apply to people you disagree with?

Once more I have to ask you to stop playing games. You know exactly what everyone means by "collusion" (hell, it's even been posted here). For some reason you think it's amusing to juggle with words so as to divert from the very real threats to American democracy we're talking about, just because they happen to come from your "side" of the political spectrum.

 

[Belz...]

Really? Because I don't.

Oh, you know him very well. He just happens to be on the other side of the argument right now, so he can't agree with this sort of logic at the moment.

Funny. First, you appeal to authority, then you throw authority under the bus. It's as if you have no logical basis for your position.

Yes, because that 3% of dissenters on global warming have just as much weight as the other 97%, and we should also teach creationism in school because there are some people with PhDs who disagree with the theory of evolution based on absolutely-not-religious reasons.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, quite telling, but not in the way you think.

Is it also quite telling when you refuse to define or support your own claims, citing various excuses, such as Obama's thick-skinned narcissism? Or does that only apply to people you disagree with?

You simply can't be honest about any of this, can you? I defined my terms then. I decided not to give evidence for that claim because (and you may have forgotten this part) it was never a central part of the argument I was actually making in the post in which it appeared. Seriously, go back to that original post, and remove that claim. See what happens to the meaning of my post. Now, stop trying to derail the thread.

Once more I have to ask you to stop playing games.

Asking you to define one central term upon which your entire position depends is not playing games. Refusing to do so is.

You know exactly what everyone means by "collusion"

No, actually, I do NOT know what everyone means by "collusion". I only have some vague notions of what is meant, which do not suffice to answer the other key questions (is it illegal, and did Trump Jr. do it).

Why is defining one word so hard to do?

 

[Mumbles]

Your standard is not realistic, nor are you holding anyone else to it. Remember, this was before wikileaks revealed that they had DNC emails. The fact that there was any hacking going on with the election wasn't public knowledge.

"My" standard is, in reality, below the standard that millions of Americans, including campaign workers, are held to on a daily basis.

How exactly do you determine how suspicious or not he was from his emails?

Use your best judgement. Nobody gets blasted for erring on the side of caution in these cases.

But in this case, we aren't talking about "suspicious", we're discussing "open claim". "The Russian government is attempting to swing the vote against Hillary Clinton, I would like you to meet person x, and receive information from them as a part of that." That's just plain confessing guilt.

Oh, please. Lethal territory? Yeah, no. Putin kills Russians with regularity, but he doesn't kill Americans very much.

There's always a first time.

As for the legality, you really don't know what you're talking about.

And plainly, neither do you.

Getting oppo research on Hillary Clinton isn't betraying the US. This is just ridiculous hyperbole, and at this point it's clear that there's no reason to take you seriously.

This is not about oppo research, this is about whether or not Trump jr, Manafort, and Kushner were willing to cooperate with a foreign adversary to sabotage US elections - and it's perfectly clear that they eagerly agreed to do so. That is betrayal, in text.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, because that 3% of dissenters on global warming have just as much weight as the other 97%, and we should also teach creationism in school because there are some people with PhDs who disagree with the theory of evolution based on absolutely-not-religious reasons.

Why is that at all relevant? You have neither data on any consensus legal viewpoint here nor any argument for the superiority of your legal argument over mine. This is just a pathetic attempt to smear me because you have no actual counter-argument to justify your legal interpretation.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is not about oppo research, this is about whether or not Trump jr, Manafort, and Kushner were willing to cooperate with a foreign adversary to sabotage US elections - and it's perfectly clear that they eagerly agreed to do so. That is betrayal, in text.

If Russia had true information exposing a Hillary scandal, and Trump Jr. obtained that information and made it public, how does that count as "sabotage" of US elections? You seem to be arguing that the less the public knows about the candidates it votes for, the better. That's a peculiar position to be taking.

And if that's not the position that you're taking, then nothing about your claim is clear. Why is getting more information to voters "sabotage"? Why is that "betrayal"?

 

[jimbob]

WaPo piece on whether the lrgal line was crossed for
(claimed attempted) conspiracy with a foreign government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...ave-just-crossed-the-legal-line-on-collusion/

tldr, it's pretty close to the line even if it doesn't cross it, which it may.

ETA

Jacobovitz said conspiracy to commit election fraud is the big legal fish Mueller and his team may be trying to fry. But they're probably also looking at a whole host of laws that could have been broken under this scenario: quid pro quo with the Russians, bribery, potential perjury related to what members of the Trump campaign said under oath to Congress and failing to disclose these contacts in official security forms.

 

[Belz...]

You simply can't be honest about any of this, can you?

Oh, I'm being entirely honest.

I decided not to give evidence for that claim because (and you may have forgotten this part) it was never a central part of the argument I was actually making in the post in which it appeared.

It was the entire point of the thread, Zig!

Asking you to define one central term upon which your entire position depends is not playing games. Refusing to do so is.

No, it really isn't. Again, asking me to define "is" would be just as ridiculous, since you already know exactly what we mean by it.

No, actually, I do NOT know what everyone means by "collusion".

I don't believe you.

 

[Belz...]

Why is that at all relevant?

I don't know, you brought it up. If it's irrelevant, it's on you.

If Russia had true information exposing a Hillary scandal, and Trump Jr. obtained that information and made it public, how does that count as "sabotage" of US elections?

Oh, so even if it's illegal, it's still ok? So why the fuss about whether or not it was illegal? Covering all your bases?

Dishonest to the last.

 

[Mumbles]

If Russia had true information exposing a Hillary scandal, and Trump Jr. obtained that information and made it public, how does that count as "sabotage" of US elections? You seem to be arguing that the less the public knows about the candidates it votes for, the better. That's a peculiar position to be taking.

And if that's not the position that you're taking, then nothing about your claim is clear. Why is getting more information to voters "sabotage"? Why is that "betrayal"?

*Obviously* the most open deal would be oppo research given to help Toupee Fiasco, and favors given to Putin in return.

Since that didn't happen, we're left with the question "What was Putin up to?" Well, he knows that these idiots are happy to betray the US for personal gain, he has multiple blackmailable people connected directly to the president - it's actually worse than what I said above.

Obviously, none of thee three should be allowed to hold any sort of security clearance, or be allowed to work in the Whiter House, at any point in the future. But then again, Toupee Fiasco was always clearly unfit to hold any sort of public office, so we'll see whether or not the GOP in Congress is willing to sell out the US for power as well. I assume McConnell is, given his behavior ever since Obama was elected. Ryan may or may not be - he's moight say "Gee, getting rid of Fiasco and Pence will help me harm the poor." Trey Gowdy, surprisingly, appears to have grown a spine recently.

 

[varwoche]

"We didn't meet with Russians. Fake News!" -->
"Oops, we omitted incidental encounters. Fake News!" -->
"What's the harm in attempting to conspire with Russian operatives? Fake News!"

 

[Bogative]

Well, that would still be collusion...

But you seem to be comfortable with that, I guess. *shrugs*

I'm not particularly comfortable with either, I just find the ****show put on by the left bewildering entertaining when the other party does it.