• 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!

quid pro quo

Lovebug said:
Ryan may not be to everyone's liking, but for some reason I don't think he is dumb enough to accept a bribe. Yeah, I'll wait until there's more than gossip.
Click to expand...

These donations aren't even to Ryan. They're to a joint fund of which Ryan is only one of the beneficiaries. It's not like this "$500K" goes directly to him.
 
Harshaw said:
These donations aren't even to Ryan. They're to a joint fund of which Ryan is only one of the beneficiaries. It's not like this "$500K" goes directly to him.
Click to expand...

Who are the other "many" beneficiaries of "Team Ryan 2018"? Just curious.
 
tres borrachos said:
Who are the other "many" beneficiaries of "Team Ryan 2018"? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "many"; don't attribute false quotes to me.

Ryan for Congress, the NRCC, and the Prosperity Action super-PAC.

Does that satisfy your "curiosity"?
 
Harshaw said:
Ryan for Congress, the NRCC, and the Prosperity Action super-PAC.

Does that satisfy your "curiosity"?
Click to expand...

Why did you put "curiosity" in quotes?

The NRCC and the PAC are two beneficiaries (that isn't "many" by the way). Ryan is the primary beneficiary. You do know that, right?

By the way, I'm a fan of Ryan and have made no secret of that fact on here. But I'm also honest. It isn't like he isn't going to benefit from that donation. He is. Very much so.
 
poweRob said:
In any rational society this is called a bribe.

Paul Ryan Collected $500,000 In Koch Contributions Days After House Passed Tax Law
Click to expand...

It's the case with all these guys, they even slipped up and admitted that they needed to pass this or thye would lose donations.

how much scum are the Koch brothers, how much more money do they possibly need?

This entire administration has brought the swamp and all the swamp monsters with him. He is raiding the country. The latest BS with trying to ruin solar industry, being a crony for oil industry. Trying to destroy our most prized possession, the national parks, so the oil companies can exploit it is appalling. DeVos tryihng to ruin public education.

Seriously, anybody that supports trump after all this is just a hypocritical A hole
 
Lovebug said:
Ryan may not be to everyone's liking, but for some reason I don't think he is dumb enough to accept a bribe. Yeah, I'll wait until there's more than gossip.
Click to expand...

It was a perfectly legal bribe, which means technically it's not actually a bribe. Much the same way that abortion is perfectly legal murder, which means technically it's not actually murder.
 
tres borrachos said:
Why did you put "curiosity" in quotes?
Click to expand...

Because your "just curious" was sarcastic. Don't pretend it wasn't. After all, you're "honest." You say so yourself.

You're lecturing me in this post as though you believe you're schooling me on the nature of Team Ryan. Thus, if so, you already knew the answer, and weren't actually "curious."

As such, the quotes are appropriate.

The NRCC and the PAC are two beneficiaries
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. I said so.

(that isn't "many" by the way).
Click to expand...

I didn't say "many." I already told you this. Why do you continue to pretend I did? Why do you attribute a false quote to me? I thought you were "honest."

Ryan is the primary beneficiary. You do know that, right?
Click to expand...

I didn't say otherwise. Why do you pretend I did? I thought you were "honest."

By the way, I'm a fan of Ryan and have made no secret of that fact on here. But I'm also honest. It isn't like he isn't going to benefit from that donation. He is. Very much so.
Click to expand...

I never said he wasn't. You are pretending I've said a lot of things I didn't. You say you are "honest." So why are you doing so?
 
Harshaw said:
Because your "just curious" was sarcastic. Don't pretend it wasn't. After all, you're "honest." You say so yourself.

You're lecturing me in this post as though you believe you're schooling me on the nature of Team Ryan. Thus, if so, you already knew the answer, and weren't actually "curious."

As such, the quotes are appropriate.



Yes, they are. I said so.



I didn't say "many." I already told you this. Why do you continue to pretend I did? Why do you attribute a false quote to me? I thought you were "honest."



I didn't say otherwise. Why do you pretend I did? I thought you were "honest."



I never said he wasn't. You are pretending I've said a lot of things I didn't. You say you are "honest." So why are you doing so?
Click to expand...


With backpedaling skills like this you should be in a circus bro. :thumbs:
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah? Demonstrate the "backpedaling."
Click to expand...

In context, your original post contained a very clear implication. And upon having said implication challenged, you've been backpedaling like a rodeo clown pretending you didn't imply what you clearly implied. Cowardly hiding behind what you "literally said" while denying the obvious implication of it, doesn't make you special unfortunately. It seems to happen here all the time.
 
Harshaw said:
Because your "just curious" was sarcastic. Don't pretend it wasn't. After all, you're "honest." You say so yourself.

You're lecturing me in this post as though you believe you're schooling me on the nature of Team Ryan. Thus, if so, you already knew the answer, and weren't actually "curious."

As such, the quotes are appropriate.



Yes, they are. I said so.



I didn't say "many." I already told you this. Why do you continue to pretend I did? Why do you attribute a false quote to me? I thought you were "honest."



I didn't say otherwise. Why do you pretend I did? I thought you were "honest."



I never said he wasn't. You are pretending I've said a lot of things I didn't. You say you are "honest." So why are you doing so?
Click to expand...

No, my "just curious" wasn't sarcastic. You aren't in a position to know what's in my mind. I asked you to clarify your comment. There was nothing sarcastic in that. It's called being honest.
 
Proteus said:
In context, your original post contained a very clear implication. And upon having said implication challenged, you've been backpedaling like a rodeo clown pretending you didn't imply what you clearly implied. Cowardly hiding behind what you "literally said" while denying the obvious implication of it, doesn't make you special unfortunately. It seems to happen here all the time.
Click to expand...

I said that Ryan wasn't the only beneficiary of Team Ryan and wouldn't get all of the donation. The "clear implication" of what I said, especially as "implied" by the context of the post I was responding to, is that it muddles any notion of the Koch donation being a "bribe" to Ryan or "quid pro quo." If you read something else into it, that's your own problem.

What I "literally said" is what I literally meant. I choose words carefully so that my words convey exactly what I mean. Your sloppy reading is your own failing.
 
Harshaw said:
I said that Ryan wasn't the only beneficiary of Team Ryan and wouldn't get all of the donation. The "clear implication" of what I said, especially as "implied" by the context of the post I was responding to, is that it muddles any notion of the Koch donation being a "bribe" to Ryan or "quid pro quo." If you read something else into it, that's your own problem.

What I "literally said" is what I literally meant. I choose words carefully so that my words convey exactly what I mean. Your sloppy reading is your own failing.
Click to expand...


Yes, you chose your words very carefully, so as to leave yourself an out when you got called on it.

Good for you.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, my "just curious" wasn't sarcastic. You aren't in a position to know what's in my mind. I asked you to clarify your comment. There was nothing sarcastic in that. It's called being honest.
Click to expand...

If you already knew the answer, tres, then why did you ask?

"Honesty" would involve not pretending I said so many things I didn't and attributing false quotes to me. But that's not what happened.

But if this is about "honesty," do you honestly believe the OP is correct, that the Koch donations were a "quid pro quo," and constitute a "bribe"?

If not, then what's your beef here? I gave factual reasons why that notion is dubious. Why are you trying to prove I'm wrong by doing so? Unless you think it was a bribe and there was a quid pro quo. So, do you?
 
Proteus said:
Yes, you chose your words very carefully, so as to leave yourself an out when you got called on it.

Good for you.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Not my fault I wasn't actually saying what you wish I was.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: Not my fault I wasn't actually saying what you wish I was.
Click to expand...

I don't wish anything. Your implication was clear and obvious, as is your repeated backpedaling.

But enough about that, how about you explain the surely iron-clad logic to dismiss the notion of the donation being quid pro quo? I agree that it's not a bribe, at least not technically, but to suggest it's not quid pro quo is to betray abject dishonesty and/or extreme stupidity.
 
Proteus said:
I don't wish anything. Your implication was clear and obvious, as is your repeated backpedaling.

But enough about that, how about you explain the surely iron-clad logic to dismiss the notion of the donation being quid pro quo? I agree that it's not a bribe, at least not technically, but to suggest it's not quid pro quo is to betray abject dishonesty and/or extreme stupidity.
Click to expand...

That being the level, and filter, you're working from, what you read into my words was always going to be questionable at best.
 
Harshaw said:
That being the level, and filter, you're working from, what you read into my words was always going to be questionable at best.
Click to expand...

Your concession duly noted.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll: Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Click to expand...

The irony, that is undoubtedly lost on you, is that if I'm to take you at your word that you weren't implying what you seemed to be implying, you're essentially saying that your post had no relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. If that's the jacket you prefer to wear, that's ok with me.
 
They all take bribes and trying to call out your oppenent for it when the ones you like do the same thing is dishonest.
 
tres borrachos said:
Why did you put "curiosity" in quotes?

The NRCC and the PAC are two beneficiaries (that isn't "many" by the way). Ryan is the primary beneficiary. You do know that, right?

By the way, I'm a fan of Ryan and have made no secret of that fact on here. But I'm also honest. It isn't like he isn't going to benefit from that donation. He is. Very much so.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Harshaw said, tres.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom