House Leadership Is Looking Flakey

Yooper

Childhood idol: George Washington, Fighter Pilot
PREMO Member
"Trump said it."
There is a "thing" in persuasion science called "leading and pacing." One does this in order to prep the "target" of one's persuasion to accept a future state. As Trump does this quite a bit, I can't help but wonder if his comments about the subject of the OP ('accepting info") is more than a troll and/or not at all a mistake; it's leading and pacing to form public opinion to accept investigations into HRC's actions.

Trump talked about a future hypothetical and got the head of the FEC to opine. Many think Weintraub was speaking about Trump (and perhaps she was), but it also "set in stone" a marker for an investigation of HRC. Weintraub quoted USC about "soliciting, accepting, or receiving" being a crime; I can't help but wonder if HRC & campaign knew this and thus thought it essential to use so many cut-outs; she and her posse could claim nothing that was done was done with "foreign entities."

I could be wrong; have been in the past. But my sense of all this is that something much bigger is in play; something the persuasion angle seems to confirm.

FWIW.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's not reasonable to hope that elected officials don't receive info on opponents from other countries? We simply disagree on what actions we consider reasonable by our elected officials.

None of your hypotheticals remotely relate to this scenario.
Clinton and Obama and McCain receiving something material that was never reported as such is not hypothetical, it is historical fact.

Mrs. Clinton paying for the Russian government to help her in the 2016 presidential campaign so that government would supply "dirt" on Mr. Trump is not hypothetical, it is historical fact.

Nothing being done about either of those things is not hypothetical, it is actual current-day fact.

Why is it unreasonable to expect a politician in the middle of a campaign to not accept information? You've still not answered. You've given hypotheticals about bad things that could potentially come of it, like a crime being covered up by the politician to blackmail the other politician - but, THAT is hypothetical and already against the law anyway. You've suggested that the other country might want something in return, but that's a hypothetical on a hypothetical - meaningless unless it happens and already against the law anyway.

So, is the information hypothetically supplied "meddling", or "transparency"?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
The issue is value, not cost. If the information has value, then you have received something from the foreign agent. If it wins you the Presidency, where do you begin to place a value on that? If the information has no value, say it's telephoto shots of you opponent playing chess in the park, then of course, it has no value and you are in the clear.

Face it, folks, Trump was wrong to say, he should say he didnt understand it as much as Obama didnt understand virtually any race relations issue from Harvard to Ferguson, and apologize and say of course, now that he understands it, he would never accept such information. And yes, Hillary yadyada, but two wrongs dont make a right for both sides.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Clinton and Obama and McCain receiving something material that was never reported as such is not hypothetical, it is historical fact.

Was it from another country? If not, how does it relate to this discussion?

Mrs. Clinton paying for the Russian government to help her in the 2016 presidential campaign so that government would supply "dirt" on Mr. Trump is not hypothetical, it is historical fact.

Yes, it is. And I believe in my last reply I stated that was a bad thing.

Nothing being done about either of those things is not hypothetical, it is actual current-day fact.

Why is it unreasonable to expect a politician in the middle of a campaign to not accept information? You've still not answered. You've given hypotheticals about bad things that could potentially come of it, like a crime being covered up by the politician to blackmail the other politician - but, THAT is hypothetical and already against the law anyway. You've suggested that the other country might want something in return, but that's a hypothetical on a hypothetical - meaningless unless it happens and already against the law anyway.

So, is the information hypothetically supplied "meddling", or "transparency"?
You're moving the goal posts. The discussion has always been about info from another country and you've now made it about basic information.

I gave you what you asked for. Reasonable reasons why a candidate should not accept information from another country.

I don't know what else I can do since you can't seem to stay on topic.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You're moving the goal posts. The discussion has always been about info from another country and you've now made it about basic information.

I gave you what you asked for. Reasonable reasons why a candidate should not accept information from another country.

I don't know what else I can do since you can't seem to stay on topic.
So, we'll negate the rest, and just agree that Clinton should be prosecuted for her well-documented acts on-subject.

I'm curious, why have you not called for that prosecution years ago, when it was first pointed out and documented, but you are now concerned about Mr. Trump's answer to a hypothetical question?

I'm also curious whether you think the foreign government offering information is "meddling" or "transparency".

You haven't offered reasonable reasons, as demonstrated by my tearing apart anything "reasonable" about your reasons.
 

Toxick

Splat
If they are "not good enough", they are "not reasonable".

Actually that's not true at all.

You are a competent debater.


The fact that you can debate well, and pick apart arguments and win an argument does not

  1. Make you right
  2. Make the opposing arguments wrong or unreasonable.
It simply means you're able to win arguments or outlast someone who don't have the skill, stamina or stubbornness to continue arguing about it.


You haven't offered reasonable reasons, as demonstrated by my tearing apart anything "reasonable" about your reasons.

See above: Just because you can tear apart an argument does not make it unreasonable or wrong.
 

Toxick

Splat
Then how could it be torn apart?

Anything can be torn apart.

I could tear apart your use of the term "tear apart" if I was remotely interested in doing so.


Picking nits is not something that's new or interesting, yet it's done all the time.

Trump said "rapists and murderers are coming across the border". To this day people tear that statement apart citing it as PROOF POSITIVE that Trump is a unapologetic racist, lacking only a hood and a burning cross to seal the deal.

That does not mean these a-holes are right.



In this case, I happen to agree with your side of the argument. However, I do not believe that because you do not accept someone else's argument as reasonable, that it is not reasonable. It simply means you are not convinced. It does not mean the argument has no merit.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Anything can be torn apart.

I could tear apart your use of the term "tear apart" if I was remotely interested in doing so.


Picking nits is not something that's new or interesting, yet it's done all the time.

Trump said "rapists and murderers are coming across the border". To this day people tear that statement apart citing it as PROOF POSITIVE that Trump is a unapologetic racist, lacking only a hood and a burning cross to seal the deal.

That does not mean these a-holes are right.



In this case, I happen to agree with your side of the argument. However, I do not believe that because you do not accept someone else's argument as reasonable, that it is not reasonable. It simply means you are not convinced. It does not mean the argument has no merit.
I try (though I am certain that I am not always successful) to not pick nits but rather to argue substance. To my way of thinking, "tear apart" implies a substantive refutation, but your point is well taken
 

Toxick

Splat
I try (though I am certain that I am not always successful) to not pick nits but rather to argue substance.




I can attest with painful certainty that you are not always successful.

:whistle:


To my way of thinking, "tear apart" implies a substantive refutation, but your point is well taken
Yeah - just saying a substantive refutation is not necessarily a negation - and is quite often simply out-debating someone.

Some are better than others at debates. The winner of a debate is not always correct.

'Minds me of that time when I was in college, many hundreds of years ago, I was in a class where a good bulk of the grade was "Debating".

The topic was Animal Testing.

I had to argue Pro. I am against animal testing.

My opponent was extremely emotional during the debate (almost her entire diatribe was built on the appeal to emotion logical fallacy). I was cold-blooded, methodical, relentless and thorough - and I obliterated her. And the ad-lib rebuttals were even worse. Just because I ran roughshod over my opponent does not mean I was right. Only that I was a better debater. And quite the douchebag when I want to be. Although afterwards, I let her know that I am totally against everything I just argued in favor of.


So... yeah.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Nancy Pelosi states: This one borders on so totally unethical but he doesn’t even realize it.”

Is she so stupid that she doesn't realize what the Democrats did with a Dossier they bought from a Brit, and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on a Presidential candidate.
How fuggin stupid can she get?*
* See AOC
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I can attest with painful certainty that you are not always successful.

:whistle:
:lmao: Again, point accepted.

Yeah - just saying a substantive refutation is not necessarily a negation - and is quite often simply out-debating someone.

Some are better than others at debates. The winner of a debate is not always correct.

'Minds me of that time when I was in college, many hundreds of years ago, I was in a class where a good bulk of the grade was "Debating".

The topic was Animal Testing.

I had to argue Pro. I am against animal testing.

My opponent was extremely emotional during the debate (almost her entire diatribe was built on the appeal to emotion logical fallacy). I was cold-blooded, methodical, relentless and thorough - and I obliterated her. And the ad-lib rebuttals were even worse. Just because I ran roughshod over my opponent does not mean I was right. Only that I was a better debater. And quite the douchebag when I want to be. Although afterwards, I let her know that I am totally against everything I just argued in favor of.


So... yeah.
Winning while not liking the result is also not indicative of being correct, as you point out.

My point was that I try to argue the substance. If I can show the alternate point of view wrong, not just that I disagree with it, I think that is winning based on accuracy, not "out-debating". It's not that I don't agree and can out-debate, it's that the other side is wrong.

That, of course, is rarely the case. In most every debate we have on here, we are debating opinion. We are debating "better", not "factually correct." So, in cases of opinion, I do feel like I can hold my own in most debates, but I'm never "proven" right nor do I ever "prove" the other side wrong - that's a physical impossibility. Even in the case of factual discussion where I prove the other side's facts wrong, that does not mean their opinion is wrong - just that they argued the wrong points. Opinions can't be right or wrong, they just …. ARE.

And, like many on here, I have changed my opinion and/or been proven wrong in factual matters on more than one occasion based on the discussions we have. I find those the best, because I learned more than I anticipated to learn, which is VERY satisfying.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Many people are familiar with the story where Jesus confronted the crowd about to stone the adulterous woman and asked that the first one without sin should cast the first stone. The Bible then says something -- mysterious. It says he began to write in the sand.

Some stories say he was writing the Ten Commandments. One story I read years ago conjectured - he was writing the SPECIFIC sins of some in the crowd, something in keeping with his divine nature. The story goes on to say, people started to drop their rocks and leave. They didn't want to be found guilty of the very trap they'd set for Jesus.

And that's what we're seeing here - members of Congress are seeing their reflection in their righteous pronouncement of guilt.
They'd rather shrug than see their own sins exposed. It's why we no longer have any moral outrage over sexual indiscretions anymore.
They KNOW they're guilty.
A Jew once told me the alternate version of that story was that suddenly a rock came flying out of the crowd and bonked the whore on the noggin. Without looking up, Jesus said "Mother! Stop it! What have I told you?"
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Nancy Pelosi states: This one borders on so totally unethical but he doesn’t even realize it.”

Is she so stupid that she doesn't realize what the Democrats did with a Dossier they bought from a Brit, and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on a Presidential candidate.
How fuggin stupid can she get?
If he didn't realize it that means he hasn't formed any intent. According to the Hillary rule, as stated by Comey, he hasn't committed any crime.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
A Jew once told me the alternate version of that story was that suddenly a rock came flying out of the crowd and bonked the whore on the noggin. Without looking up, Jesus said "Mother! Stop it! What have I told you?"
LOL Mother was without sin, I get it.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
A Jew once told me the alternate version of that story was that suddenly a rock came flying out of the crowd and bonked the whore on the noggin. Without looking up, Jesus said "Mother! Stop it! What have I told you?"
Yeah, I heard that one too - when I was Catholic. It didn't make sense to my Protestant friends.

Oddly enough - since I grew up with LOTS of Jewish friends (once, in college, when a bunch of folks I knew were making
Jewish jokes and I objected, they informed me I was the only goy there) most of the Jewish jokes I knew came from Jews.

I did read something yesterday at least as interesting - and that is, it was Jewish observation of the law to do exactly what
Jesus did - without a proper court - or the testimony of witnesses - he had to approach it LEGALLY, by writing the accusations
in the sand.

What Jesus was saying was - "you are telling me what the Law says? THIS is what it says - I need an accuser, two witnesses and
a charge according to the law. Since we don't have a court present, the dirt will have to record it." He was following procedure.

It also says he stooped down TWICE - once again, after finishing the first time. The Law ALSO said that the man should also be put to death.
Several places. So he may have been writing those Scriptures. It says that the oldest left first - the ones who KNEW the Law and
realized, it's not going to work.

Also - according to the Law - without an accuser, you can't be judged. So Jesus asks the woman if there is anyone to condemn
her. Nope. Ok, then you can go. He was merciful to her AND UPHELD THE LAW. Brilliant.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Also - according to the Law - without an accuser, you can't be judged. So Jesus asks the woman if there is anyone to condemn her. Nope. Ok, then you can go. He was merciful to her AND UPHELD THE LAW. Brilliant.



Fantastic Explanation
 
Top