• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

TU Curmudgeon said:
Please refer to George Orwell's "Animal Farm".



The fact that you don't like reality isn't really my problem.



Since I consider that "October Surprise" is a historically hallowed and long accepted practice in American politics, it really isn't relevant to whether or not someone broke the law - is it?



It might surprise you to realize that it was not I that raised the point that a significant percentage of the American electorate was aware that Mr. Trump was a scofflaw and voted for him anyways.



Most people only complain about a "gotcha" when they have been got.



That isn't quite the same as the position that "If the President does it, it isn't illegal." which is the backbone of many posts.



That would be my position. Unfortunate the (in reality) way that that is applied these days is that


"Until after someone that I support has exhausted all appeals (by losing them), after being convicted, after being tried, after being indicted they are **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** and that means that any investigation into anything that they might have done is a perversion of justice because no one who is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** should be investigated and it also means that whatever they were unjustly convicted of doing simply didn't happen - on the other hand, if it is someone that I do not support, then the mere fact that someone mentions that they thought that they might have heard that there could have been an accusation against them means that they are **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and all that indictment, trial, conviction, and appeal nonsense is a waste of time.".
​

Now I will agree with you that that is NOT the way that "the system" is SUPPOSED to work, but I also see how "the system" DOES work.
Click to expand...

(1) Still bafflegab.

(2) Reality is not captured by statistical studies, however much you might like to think so.

(3) Depends of the legality of the Surprise:

the FBI withheld from the American public and Congress, until months later, that Steele had been paid to find his dirt on Trump by a firm doing political opposition research for the Democratic Party and for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and that Steele himself harbored hatred for Trump.

If the FBI knew of his media contacts and the concerns about the reliability of his dossier before seeking the warrant, it would constitute a serious breach of FISA regulations and the trust that the FISA court places in the FBI.

That’s because the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent.
Click to expand...


(4) Trump may indeed be a scofflaw, but I didn't say that. I merely said he didn't know the law and that he may well have accepted bad advice from bad lawyers.

(5) Weak comeback.

(6) Isn't it more to your advantage to claim that posters who've said "the Prez is golden no matter what" ARE guilty of claiming he should be exempt no matter what? Regardless, I for one have not said so.

(7) Your statement about how the law really works effectively demolishes your own argument with regard to the question of "why people commit crimes."
 
Ouroboros said:
(1) Still bafflegab.
Click to expand...

Only for those who don't understand it.

Ouroboros said:
(2) Reality is not captured by statistical studies, however much you might like to think so.
Click to expand...

I quite agree that there are some people who do not believe that "data" has anything to do with "thinking".

Ouroboros said:
(3) Depends of the legality of the Surprise:
Click to expand...

Regardless of "legality" the fact is that "October Surprise" is an accepted part of the normal functioning of the American electoral process.

Ouroboros said:
(4) Trump may indeed be a scofflaw, but I didn't say that. I merely said he didn't know the law and that he may well have accepted bad advice from bad lawyers.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the Russian peasants always thought that the Tzar simply wouldn't allow their oppression if he knew about it.

Ouroboros said:
(6) Isn't it more to your advantage to claim that posters who've said "the Prez is golden no matter what" ARE guilty of claiming he should be exempt no matter what? Regardless, I for one have not said so.
Click to expand...

Nor does "That isn't quite the same as the position that "If the President does it, it isn't illegal." which is the backbone of many posts." say that you did.

Ouroboros said:
(7) Your statement about how the law really works effectively demolishes your own argument with regard to the question of "why people commit crimes."
Click to expand...

Since "why people commit crimes" is a totally different thing than "how the people who didn't commit the crime view the people who are alleged to have committed it" I can't quite see how you reach the conclusion that you did - at least I can't if you had been reading for comprehension.
 
After so many thick-witted non-sequiturs, I'm reasonably sure that the point most relevant to this thread will still be ignored, but I'll reiterate it anyway:

the FBI withheld from the American public and Congress, until months later, that Steele had been paid to find his dirt on Trump by a firm doing political opposition research for the Democratic Party and for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and that Steele himself harbored hatred for Trump.

If the FBI knew of his media contacts and the concerns about the reliability of his dossier before seeking the warrant, it would constitute a serious breach of FISA regulations and the trust that the FISA court places in the FBI.

That’s because the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent.
Click to expand...

Once again-- in numerous tedious posts you insisted that the law was the law, and that people were free to change it but not to break it like naughty little scofflaws.

Given your boundless respect for established law, does "a serious breach of FISA regulations," one that actually took place in the real world, carry more weight than a purely imaginary breach of campaign law, yes or no?
 
Ouroboros said:
Once again-- in numerous tedious posts you insisted that the law was the law, and that people were free to change it but not to break it like naughty little scofflaws.
Click to expand...

Is your position "The law is NOT the law and people are free to break it (without consequences) if they feel like it."?

If so, there is absolutely nothing that I (or anyone else who has even a smattering of knowledge of what "law" means and/or even the faintest vestige of "respect for the rule of law") can say to you.

Ouroboros said:
Given your boundless respect for established law, does "a serious breach of FISA regulations," one that actually took place in the real world, carry more weight than a purely imaginary breach of campaign law, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Gosh, what a wonderful example of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no?" type question.

How about it if I rephrase that into a rational one?

Q - "Does "a breach of FISA regulations" carry more weight than "a breach of campaign law"?

A - That would depend on actual facts. In principle neither "carries more weight" than the other. In practice the PENALTY for each would depend on exactly what regulation or law was breached, the intention (or lack thereof) to breach the regulation or law, and the sequalae arising from the breach of the regulation or law. However, the obligation to investigate (in theory) is identical regardless of what the ALLEGED breach was. To decide, without investigating, that an alleged act had never taken place (basing that decision on the identity of the alleged malefactor) is a derogation of the responsibilities assigned to the investigative agencies. To decide, without investigating, that an alleged act had never taken place (based SOLELY on the identity of the person alleging that the act had taken place [and by that I mean without considering whether the person making the allegation had a history of making verifiable AND CORRECT findings in the past]) is a derogation of the responsibilities assigned to the investigative agencies. To completely dismiss allegations simply because the allegations are against a person whose political position is agreed with is one of the first steps down the road to totalitarianism.
​

I do apologize for the fact that my answer extends past your (self-imposed) upper limit of three characters.

Should the allegations as to whether or not the FBI (or any of its agents) breached its own (internal) regulations be investigated? Yes, they should.

Should the allegations as to whether or not there was any Russian inter-meddling in the 2016 American elections be investigated? Yes, they should.

Should there be repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated investigations into either of the above, with those repetitions being based on ignoring the evidence found and the fact that someone didn't like the conclusions reached as a result of those investigations? No, there should not.

Has it been established that the alleged "serious breach of FISA regulations" actually occurred? No, it has not.

Has it been established that the alleged "breach of campaign law" was purely imaginary? No, it has not.

Do you wish to punish the "serious breach of FISA regulations" as if the allegations have been fully investigated, people had been indicted, trials had been held, verdicts had been rendered, persons had been found guilty, and all those found guilty had completely exhausted all avenues of appeal without overturning the guilty verdicts? Yes, you do.

Do you wish to exonerate the "breach of campaign law" without those alleged to have committed them having completely exhausted all avenues of appeal without overturning the guilty verdicts, or even without being found guilty, or even without verdicts being reached, or even without trials being held, or even without indictments being laid, or even without any investigation having taken place? Yes, you do.

Does this indicate that you are a "supporter of:

  1. the rule of law"; or
  2. the "'My Guy' is always **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** (regardless of what the evidence is) BUT 'Their Guy' is always **G*U*I*L*T*Y** as long as someone alleges that they are."
school? I leave that to others to decide for themselves since both you and I already know the answer.
 
How amusing that you would attempt to further polarize the discussion with the nonsensical premise that (a) because I have stated that you've been tedious in stating the obvious regarding the lawfulness of the law, (b) I must be controverting your entire position vis-a-vis the lawfulness of the law.

Your "Q" is a similar distortion, because you omit my original terms: real vs. imaginary.

Thus this statement is similarly nonsensical:

Has it been established that the alleged "serious breach of FISA regulations" actually occurred? No, it has not.

Has it been established that the alleged "breach of campaign law" was purely imaginary? No, it has not.
Click to expand...

It's probable that no one will ever be charged or reprimanded with regard to the breach of FISA regulations. However, there is no serious doubt that the breach occurred.

In contrast, there is no proof that Trump has in real life accepted any of the "gifts" under discussion, and not even a highly-motivated, hostile member of intelligence like Mueller has been able to demonstrate otherwise.

So your answer to my question is, as I expected, not to admit that real wrongdoing on the Left "trumps" imaginary wrongdoing on the Right.
 
Ouroboros said:
How amusing that you would attempt to further polarize the discussion with the nonsensical premise that (a) because I have stated that you've been tedious in stating the obvious regarding the lawfulness of the law, (b) I must be controverting your entire position vis-a-vis the lawfulness of the law.

Your "Q" is a similar distortion, because you omit my original terms: real vs. imaginary.

Thus this statement is similarly nonsensical:



It's probable that no one will ever be charged or reprimanded with regard to the breach of FISA regulations. However, there is no serious doubt that the breach occurred.

In contrast, there is no proof that Trump has in real life accepted any of the "gifts" under discussion, and not even a highly-motivated, hostile member of intelligence like Mueller has been able to demonstrate otherwise.

So your answer to my question is, as I expected, not to admit that real wrongdoing on the Left "trumps" imaginary wrongdoing on the Right.
Click to expand...

Since your question was of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" variety, it is NOT one that I would attempt to answer.

However, if it will do any good, I will admit that a "real" offence (whatever the offence is) is more important than an "imaginary" offence (whatever that one is).

Yes, I "omitted" your "original terms" as those terms were only included so that you could ask a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" question, and I thought that it was much more important to answer a real question that admitted of real answers. Obviously, in your opinion it is much more important to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" type questions (where there is no rational answer if the "wife beating" never took place at all) than it is to ask real questions that admit of real answers.

Possibly you might understand (my faith in human intelligence is slightly greater than Albert Einstein's was) this:

  1. Real wrongdoing on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you) is more important than imaginary wrongdoing on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you; AND
  2. Real wrongdoing on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you) is more important than imaginary wrongdoing on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you.
(For the assistance of the literacy impaired, I have added a slight typographical emphasis to one word [but a very important word] in the above. Please feel free to let me know if the meaning of that word escapes you.)

As neither the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you) nor the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you, it is impossible to say which "trumps" which.
 
MauiMan said:
His brain is miss-wired. Obviously he learned nothing from the Mueller investigation.
Click to expand...

Ivy League educated billionaire married to a supermodel who became the most powerful man in the world.

Seems wired right to me.
 
Sheepdog said:
It means over 60% of this country is wired wrong.
Click to expand...

Another person to add to the growing list of people whose support for Mr. Trump just got stronger after he told American born people (some of whose families have been in the United States of America longer than his own family has been [and none of whose families {including themselves} have lied about where their family members were born) to "Go back to where you came from.".

"I have served in the Air Force and in Congress. People still tell me to ‘go back’ to China." most certainly describes the actions of those "loyal Americans".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since your question was of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" variety, it is NOT one that I would attempt to answer.

However, if it will do any good, I will admit that a "real" offence (whatever the offence is) is more important than an "imaginary" offence (whatever that one is).

Yes, I "omitted" your "original terms" as those terms were only included so that you could ask a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" question, and I thought that it was much more important to answer a real question that admitted of real answers. Obviously, in your opinion it is much more important to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" type questions (where there is no rational answer if the "wife beating" never took place at all) than it is to ask real questions that admit of real answers.

Possibly you might understand (my faith in human intelligence is slightly greater than Albert Einstein's was) this:

  1. Real wrongdoing on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you) is more important than imaginary wrongdoing on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you; AND
  2. Real wrongdoing on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you) is more important than imaginary wrongdoing on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you.
(For the assistance of the literacy impaired, I have added a slight typographical emphasis to one word [but a very important word] in the above. Please feel free to let me know if the meaning of that word escapes you.)

As neither the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you) nor the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you, it is impossible to say which "trumps" which.
Click to expand...

Your "beating your wife" metaphor is absolutely meaningless in the context of this argument, but if you wanna keep typing it, go ahead.

However, if it will do any good, I will admit that a "real" offence (whatever the offence is) is more important than an "imaginary" offence (whatever that one is).
Click to expand...

That's really all you had to say to respond accurately to the question.

As neither the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you) nor the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you, it is impossible to say which "trumps" which.
Click to expand...

If you're going to complain about people who suffer from literary impairment, as you do in the previous paragraph, you might want to avoid sentence fragments.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, many people agree with Mr. Trump - at least 37.3% of the American electorate.

Which, once you understand what they agree with is a pretty sad commentary.
Click to expand...

Well, one of their agreements may be that telling someone to go home because of their politics is not the same as telling them to go home because of their race.

Obviously the Left doesn't KNOW the difference, so maybe they're the ones who are "wired wrong."
 
Ouroboros said:
Well, one of their agreements may be that telling someone to go home because of their politics is not the same as telling them to go home because of their race.

Obviously the Left doesn't KNOW the difference, so maybe they're the ones who are "wired wrong."
Click to expand...

Would you agree that if you say "go back home" only to non-whites who disagree with your politics, that this is racist?
 
pamak said:
Would you agree that if you say "go back home" only to non-whites who disagree with your politics, that this is racist?
Click to expand...

If one can prove that the speaker has never said anything equally insulting to whites who disagree with his politics, that would be a distinct possibility.

“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren’t captured.”-- Trump, 2008.
Click to expand...
 
Ouroboros said:
If one can prove that the speaker has never said anything equally insulting to whites who disagree with his politics, that would be a distinct possibility.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove such negative (one has never said anything similar to whites) but you can try to find if you can detect any instance by Trump or any other white conservative politician who said something similar to whites who disagree with the white politicians' politics, and if you cannot find such evidence, then you can make a good argument that such comment is probably racist. Political arguments are not math.
 
pamak said:
You cannot prove such negative (one has never said anything similar to whites) but you can try to find if you can detect any instance by Trump or any other white conservative politician who said something similar to whites who disagree with the white politicians' politics, and if you cannot find such evidence, then you can make a good argument that such comment is probably racist. Political arguments are not math.
Click to expand...

Could you reword that? I genuinely am not following you.
 
Ouroboros said:
Could you reword that? I genuinely am not following you.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where exactly is the source of the confusion, so it is difficult to reword what I wrote without knowing the specific part that troubles you: So, is one of the confusing things the part in the beginning about proving a "negative"?
 
pamak said:
I am not sure where exactly is the source of the confusion, so it is difficult to reword what I wrote without knowing the specific part that troubles you: So, is one of the confusing things the part in the beginning about proving a "negative"?
Click to expand...

Well, the fact that you didn't say "a negative" was confusing, since without the article the phrase loses all meaning.

It doesn't apply, though, because I didn't ask you or anyone to prove a negative. To rephrase, you asked me if I would consider someone to be racist if they had insulted only non-white people with the suggestion that they "go back home." I said that it made a difference as to whether or not the speaker was equally insulting toward white people.

Now, you loaded the argument by narrowly specifying the insult: asking whether or not the speaker had only directed the "go back home" insult to people of color. We both know that you meant Trump, so I supplied a quote in which Trump flagrantly insulted a white war hero as my response. Given how "take no prisoners" he's been in insulting white people, can you or anyone doubt that under the right circumstances he WOULD say something similar to any ultraliberal white congressman whom he Trump believed to be disloyal to America?
 
Ouroboros said:
Well, the fact that you didn't say "a negative" was confusing, since without the article the phrase loses all meaning.

It doesn't apply, though, because I didn't ask you or anyone to prove a negative. To rephrase, you asked me if I would consider someone to be racist if they had insulted only non-white people with the suggestion that they "go back home." I said that it made a difference as to whether or not the speaker was equally insulting toward white people.

Now, you loaded the argument by narrowly specifying the insult: asking whether or not the speaker had only directed the "go back home" insult to people of color. We both know that you meant Trump, so I supplied a quote in which Trump flagrantly insulted a white war hero as my response. Given how "take no prisoners" he's been in insulting white people, can you or anyone doubt that under the right circumstances he WOULD say something similar to any ultraliberal white congressman whom he Trump believed to be disloyal to America?
Click to expand...

okay, now I am confused, and most probably completely missed what you said about the insult of a white hero (I assume you mean McCain). My point was not that Trump was racist because he simply insulted a non-white person. My claim about the racism of Trump's statement is based on HOW he chose to insult her (go back home).

To put it in a different way, you can choose to insult a Latino American and tell him that he is ugly, fat, or whatever. This does not mean that such insult is racist. Such comments are often used against white Americans too. But when you tell a Black person, "go back to where you came from" or "go back to Africa," and you do not say something similar to a "White American" (go back to Europe), then this type of response is based on the racial identity of the person.
 
Ouroboros said:
Your "beating your wife" metaphor is absolutely meaningless in the context of this argument, but if you wanna keep typing it, go ahead.
Click to expand...

And if you want to continue to think that a rational person would actually expect to receive a response to a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" type question in exactly the form demanded, feel free to do so.

Ouroboros said:
That's really all you had to say to respond accurately to the question.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. The original question was so semantically loaded that it was unanswerable (especially since it was a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer 'Yes.' or 'No.'" type question).


Ouroboros said:
If you're going to complain about people who suffer from literary impairment, as you do in the previous paragraph, you might want to avoid sentence fragments.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing out the finger fumbles.

Just so that you can actually understand what I meant to say (rather than having to infer it from the context), I will rewrite it with the corrections indicated.

As neither the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Left" (whatever that term means to you) nor the alleged "wrongdoing" on "The Right" (whatever that term means to you) have been proven, it is impossible to say which "trumps" which.
​

Happy now?
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros said:
Well, one of their agreements may be that telling someone to go home because of their politics is not the same as telling them to go home because of their race.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

Everyone knows that anyone whose family immigrated to the United States of America has absolutely no business criticizing any aspect of the United States of America and anyone whose family immigrated to the United States of America AND who DOES criticize any aspect of the United States of America should "go back to where you(r family) came from".

Just because someone was born in the United States of America to a family that immigrated to the United States of America (before 1885) that doesn't mean that they have any right whatsoever to criticize any aspect of the United States of America.

PS - Thank you for your faithful adherence to the currently operative, latest version, of the officially approved and White House endorsed playbook instruction to:

Keep denying that the comments were racist in any way shape or manner at the same time as you totally refuse to be drawn into any discussion as to whether the comments were actually appropriate (especially since they were being made by someone whose family immigrated to the United States of America in 1885, whose family has lied about the places of birth of its members, and who has a lengthy history of making complaints about all aspects of the United States of America.
​

Ouroboros said:
Obviously the Left doesn't KNOW the difference, so maybe they're the ones who are "wired wrong."
Click to expand...

Quite right, everyone knows that the 1[sup]st[/sup] Amendment grants absolute freedom of speech UNLESS the speaker is saying something that even remotely implies something that could potentially be confused with words that theoretically could be interpreted as being even slightly less than fulsome adoration of Donald John Trump.
 
pamak said:
okay, now I am confused, and most probably completely missed what you said about the insult of a white hero (I assume you mean McCain). My point was not that Trump was racist because he simply insulted a non-white person. My claim about the racism of Trump's statement is based on HOW he chose to insult her (go back home).

To put it in a different way, you can choose to insult a Latino American and tell him that he is ugly, fat, or whatever. This does not mean that such insult is racist. Such comments are often used against white Americans too. But when you tell a Black person, "go back to where you came from" or "go back to Africa," and you do not say something similar to a "White American" (go back to Europe), then this type of response is based on the racial identity of the person.
Click to expand...

No, it can also be directed at the speaker's perception of hypocrisy. Here's the original three-part tweet, irrelevant though it is to the original thread-topic:

So interesting to see "Progressive" Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly...

...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....

....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
Click to expand...

Most people telling others to "go back where they came from" do not leave open the possibility of those persons ever "coming back."

I drew the comparison with McCain because it shows that Trump will say pretty much anything to undermine adversaries of any color, even maligning a white veteran who had suffered enemy torture. Most of the other comments that have been flagged as racist by the media are no worse than things he's said about white people, like suggesting that Maxine Waters ought to take an IQ test. Waters immediately played the race card on that one, and the media's distortion here is no different.
 
ecofarm said:
That's a pathetic and old lie.

Steele was not an agent. He had been. But was not. So, not an agent. Nothing illegal.

The RNC commissioned the dossier. The company the RNC paid hired Steele.
Click to expand...

He relied on russian contacts for his dossier, he colluded with russian agents. You soon will have to come up with some other explanation. IG report is out soon and then the AG's report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom