Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Ziggurat]

That you do so often, in order to bog down discussion rather than push it forward.

Tell me, Argumemnon: has your response to my simple question pushed forward discussion, or has it bogged it down?

The mote is in your eye, not mine.

I love how you admit that you could do some work on your behaviour

I love how you categorize giving in to your demands as "do some work on your behaviour".

but I don't love how you think there was a "maybe" in there. The maybe is entirely your creation.

Oh, so your promise to be nice if I do whatever you want is genuine.

Newsflash, sonny: your interpretation doesn't change objective reality, and I know better than you do what I meant by what I said.

I do not dispute that. But I don't have access to whatever you meant. I only have access to what you said.

Just like I'm taking your word games at their plain, obvious purpose, right?

Wrong. You are ascribing meaning to them other than what's contained in them. That's why you have to appeal to "body of work", and not he actual meaning of the text.

You keep trying to play games, but you aren't even any good at it.

I've been entirely honest. I always am.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No.

In other words, give in to your demands.

To define the basic terms you use? Yes. That's how to actually move the debate forward. That's what you claim you want.

But your actions prove otherwise. This is why I can't take any of your protestations of honesty seriously. You prove by your actions the opposite of your claims.

Stop lying, Zig. The question was answered many times

Only one person answered it to me, and I accepted their answer. And that happened well after you got your panties in a bunch about it.

and you knew exactly what was meant by it.

No, I didn't. Remember, as you yourself pointed out, you know better than I do what you mean.

Stop applying different rules to other people than those you use for yourself.

Different rules? Are you ****** kidding me? I just applied the SAME rules. You're the one trying to apply different rules, by refusing my question but demanding an answer to your own.

But there is further irony to this accusation. On the one hand, you reject my interpretation of your words because you know your own meaning better than I do. But when I ask you about the meaning of your words, you reject that request too, because I should already know your meaning with certainty. You can't even apply the same rules to me, within the same post.

You are everything you accuse me of being.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not even the point. It's the lies, omissions and evasions, and the constantly shifting stories.

For you, perhaps. But for some others, the claim that the meeting itself was illegal is very much a major point.

I agree that disproving that claim doesn't alleviate all concerns, about the administration in general or even the meeting in particular, but it's still worth doing, because it's true.

 

[I Am The Scum]

By "criminalizing speech" I simply mean that you're making it a crime to talk to people about a topic.

Not quite. It would be a crime for certain types of people to talk about a subject to certain other kinds of people. Namely, foreign nationals would be allowed to spread election-specific information, but they would be barred from giving that information directly to or coordinating with a campaign, as that constitutes giving a "thing of value."

As far as I can tell, foreign nationals aren't even allowed to put up billboards that support a candidate by name.

In AO 1989-32, the Commission concluded that although foreign nationals could make disbursements solely to influence ballot issues, a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate's re-election campaign.

In AO 1984-41, the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were not election influencing because they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

Personally, I think that is unfair, but this does appear to be the law.

As for your illegal immigrant hypothetical, I think this would be a violation of the law. The opposition campaign should say to the worker, "That's really interesting, but we can't talk to you about it. If you'd like to tell your story, go to a local paper."

EDIT: Corrected something.

 

[Bob001]

....
CNN should regroup on its Trump coverage. On the whole I trust CNN but IMO it's making a strategical (tactical?) mistake. It's preaching to the choir on Trump/Russia. I'm not saying don't cover it heavily, but it annoys me to hear it go on for hours and hours without any mention of other stories happening in the country/world. It's behaving like an attack dog. Lead the hour with summaries and new developments in this latest scandal. Then offer something else. If something breaks in that hour, share that with viewers. It's a more balanced approach.

That's a broader issue. CNN has to fill 24 hours a day with a comparatively small budget. That's why a lot of their air time is filled with panel discussions about the leading events of the day and chats with political figures. During the campaign CNN gave ridiculous amounts of air time to Trump surrogates, at least in part because they were always ready and eager to appear (who can forget that Katrina woman?). CNN is no attack dog. If they're giving a lot of time to Trump matters, it's because Trump and his family have never stopped doing ridiculous things.

 

[Belz...]

Tell me, Argumemnon: has your response to my simple question pushed forward discussion, or has it bogged it down?

The question was designed to bog down the discussion. Stop projecting.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, I can understand how dishonest people cannot fathom other people being honest.

 

[Ziggurat]

The question was designed to bog down the discussion. Stop projecting.

You blame me for an alleged motive, but what have you actually done? Exactly what you accuse me of, bogging down the discussion. That is projection.

Yes, I can understand how dishonest people cannot fathom other people being honest.

Again, you are everything you accuse me of being.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not quite. It would be a crime for certain types of people to talk about a subject to certain other kinds of people. Namely, foreign nationals would be allowed to spread election-specific information

But it's not election-specific. It impacts more than just the election.

but they would be barred from giving that information directly to or coordinating with a campaign, as that constitutes giving a "thing of value."

Again, I don't think that passes constitutional muster.

As far as I can tell, foreign nationals aren't even allowed to put up billboards that support a candidate by name.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

That link is primarily about money. I don't see any indication from this that speech alone would qualify.

As for your illegal immigrant hypothetical, I think this would be a violation of the law.

Again, I don't see how that interpretation can possibly survive strict scrutiny. I think it's a clear free speech violation for both parties, with no compelling state interest in stopping the speech, let alone a least restrictive means of doing so.

 

[Belz...]

You blame me for an alleged motive, but what have you actually done? Exactly what you accuse me of, bogging down the discussion. That is projection.

Meta-projection!

Look, I'm not the only poster who's poked fun at your behaviour here. How about you take a hint, use the definition of "collusion" that's been posted, and move on? Haven't you wasted our time enough?

Again, you are everything you accuse me of being.

Meta-projection again. I call you X, you say "no, you're X!" like a third-grader and when I explain the latter behaviour as projection, you double down and say "no, you're projecting!" like a high-schooler! Stop digging that hole you're in.

 

[Ziggurat]

Look, I'm not the only poster who's poked fun at your behaviour here.

Argument ad populum now? Really?

How about you take a hint, use the definition of "collusion" that's been posted, and move on?

Oh, I have! Didn't you notice? Seriously, someone posted a definition, and I responded, analyzing the situation using that definition. And unlike you, they were able to remain civil throughout. You ignored that exchange, and have instead still been bitching about the fact that I asked for a definition in the first place. I'm not the one having a problem moving on.

Haven't you wasted our time enough?

You wasted your own time, Argumemnon. You can't blame me for your own posts.

Meta-projection again. I call you X, you say "no, you're X!" like a third-grader and when I explain the latter behaviour as projection, you double down and say "no, you're projecting!" like a high-schooler! Stop digging that hole you're in.

Accusing me of grade school behavior after basically claiming you're right because you're more popular than I am isn't exactly convincing.

 

[Belz...]

Argument ad populum now? Really?

You should brush up on your fallacies. I wasn't making that argument, just pointing out that I'm not some lone nut with a grudge. This is yet another example of you twisting words and posts to suit your convenience.

Oh, I have! Didn't you notice? Seriously, someone posted a definition, and I responded, analyzing the situation using that definition.

Yeah and then you kept asking for it.

You wasted your own time, Argumemnon. You can't blame me for your own posts.

Gee, it's like you're not aware that your behaviour can affect that of others! That's why incitement to violence isn't a crime. Oh, wait...

Accusing me of grade school behavior after basically claiming you're right because you're more popular than I am isn't exactly convincing.

Oh, my. That's pathetic. Not only did I not make that claim, but you're now claiming that grade school kids engage in this sort of philosophical tricks! Again, just knee-jerk responses.

Get back on topic, will ya?

 

[quadraginta]

By "criminalizing speech" I simply mean that you're making it a crime to talk to people about a topic.

<snip>

When the topic you are talking to the people about is how you plan to break the law with them then the speech is criminal.

 

[Belz...]

When the topic you are talking to the people about is how you plan to break the law with them then the speech is criminal.

Yeah but come on, what's more important? Punishing an ineffective crime, or upholding the first amendment? Eh?

Besides, what do you mean by "criminal", exactly?

 

[Ziggurat]

You should brush up on your fallacies. I wasn't making that argument, just pointing out that I'm not some lone nut with a grudge.

My mistake. I thought you were trying to make a relevant point, and not just make an insult about popularity.

Yeah and then you kept asking for it.

No. After a definition was provided (post #3048), I never asked anyone for it again.

See, you just can't tell the truth. Do you lie intentionally, or have you fooled yourself?

Gee, it's like you're not aware that your behaviour can affect that of others!

Oh, I'm sure it can affect others. Nevertheless, I still expect others to take responsibility for their own choices. You refuse to do so, however.

You wasted your own time. I didn't force you to do that.

That's why incitement to violence isn't a crime. Oh, wait...

Strangely enough, if you have been incited to violence, you can't actually use that as a defense. I wonder why...

Get back on topic, will ya?

... he said, after having derailed the thread for pages.

Every single accusation you have leveled has been entirely hypocritical. The thing you objected to was on topic. Your objection itself was what was actually off topic. Again, take responsibility for your own actions. Can you do that? Just for once? Give it a try, see how it feels.

 

[Belz...]

My mistake.

No, no. It's mine. I promise I won't get sidetracked like this in the future. Next time I'll address your nonsense directly.

Now, where were we? Ah, yes.

So, what did you mean by "constitute"?

 

[Ziggurat]

When the topic you are talking to the people about is how you plan to break the law with them then the speech is criminal.

Sure. And I never said that speech could never be criminalized. But it requires a very heavy burden to be met. There must be compelling state interest, and the restrictions must be narrowly construed to be minimally restrictive. That is present in the case of criminalized conspiracy. That is not present here.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I don't want Trump impeached over this. If that's going to happen I want there to be a much more solid case against him personally, and enough Republican opposition to put this on firmer ground. That will depend to a large extent on how popular Trump is in their districts.

<snip>

These two things are not particularly related to each other.

It really doesn't matter how solid the case against Trump is, because the Repugnican pols don't give a damn about that anyway. He could be buggering small boys twice a week on the Capitol steps with cameras running and they wouldn't give a damn as long as it didn't threaten their re-election chances.

When those chances are threatened enough they won't give a damn how solid the case against him is, either. They will cheerfully impeach on the flimsiest of grounds.

Trump's actual culpability and the evidence supporting it are entirely irrelevant to any of that.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, no. It's mine. I promise I won't get sidetracked like this in the future.

Unlikely.

Now, where were we? Ah, yes.

So, what did you mean by "constitute"?

In post #3156, which is what you asked about, I meant "be or be equivalent to (something)."

See? It's really not so hard. You should try it sometime.

 

[Ziggurat]

These two things are not particularly related to each other.
It really doesn't matter how solid the case against Trump is, because the Repugnican pols don't give a damn about that anyway. He could be buggering small boys twice a week on the Capitol steps with cameras running and they wouldn't give a damn as long as it didn't threaten their re-election chances.

When those chances are threatened enough they won't give a damn how solid the case against him is, either. They will cheerfully impeach on the flimsiest of grounds.

Trump's actual culpability and the evidence supporting it are entirely irrelevant to any of that.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Belz...]

In post #3156, which is what you asked about, I meant "be or be equivalent to (something)."

See? It's really not so hard.

Not so hard? You called my original question hostile and took a great number of vitriolic posts to finally decide to answer. Seems it was pretty hard.

 

[blutoski]

Not quite. It would be a crime for certain types of people to talk about a subject to certain other kinds of people. Namely, foreign nationals would be allowed to spread election-specific information, but they would be barred from giving that information directly to or coordinating with a campaign, as that constitutes giving a "thing of value."

As far as I can tell, foreign nationals aren't even allowed to put up billboards that support a candidate by name.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

Personally, I think that is unfair, but this does appear to be the law.

As for your illegal immigrant hypothetical, I think this would be a violation of the law. The opposition campaign should say to the worker, "That's really interesting, but we can't talk to you about it. If you'd like to tell your story, go to a local paper."

EDIT: Corrected something.

This is my interpretation as well.

And not even immigrants, there were electioneering tourists last fall. I recall a story about some Australians flying to the USA to pitch door to door for Hillary. They were very clear that they deliberately kept zero interaction with the actual Hillary campaign in order to operate within the law.