Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
You read it both times, but you are still asking someone else (me) what it meant?
Click to expand...

Take this example:

Person 1: Do you have any evidence that this "gravity" thing exists?
Person 2: Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that things fall towards the ground?

It's not that person 2 didn't understand. It's that person 1's question is so silly and ridiculous, and would indicate such a profound ignorance that person 2 doesn't believe the question is genuine.
 
logger said:
Lol
Again, since we're talking about campaigns paying for political dirt. You're looking for a campaign that paid for political dirt. Easy as 2+2=4
Click to expand...

Lol

Answer the question: are you really unaware that this sort of thing goes on? I ask because I don't believe for a second that you don't know for a fact that this is the case. You'd just toying with me, and I'm not playing.
 
Argumemnon said:
Lol

Answer the question: are you really unaware that this sort of thing goes on? I ask because I don't believe for a second that you don't know for a fact that this is the case. You'd just toying with me, and I'm not playing.
Click to expand...

You said it would be easy to find. Like Meadmaker I've never seen anyone pay for political dirt. I've seen it come freely many times, at least the receiver never indicated a cost. Same thing seems to have happen with jr.

You said it happens all the time, should be easy to find. I can't believe you're going to weasel out of this! :rolleyes:
 
logger said:
You said it would be easy to find.
Click to expand...

Well, no, I didn't. But I also said I would only do it after you answered my question.

Like Meadmaker I've never seen anyone pay for political dirt.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you.

You said it happens all the time, should be easy to find.
Click to expand...

See, one of these things is not like the other. It's your interpretation. Kindly refrain from projecting that onto me.
 
logger said:
Shall I spell it out for you again just to watch you weasel out of it?

Campaigns paying for political dirt is what you're looking for. ;)
Click to expand...

You're confused; campaigns paying for political dirt isn't illegal (unless it was obtained illegally, of course). What's at issue is cases where they didn't pay for information and the FEC ruled that it was therefore a campaign contribution, because information has value. They have made such a ruling on contact lists, polling information, and campaign material. It turns out that one important factor is if someone else paid to collect the information. Good luck with that one, since Junior believed the information was coming from the Russian government.

But hey, Junior will not be going to jail, regardless, even though avoiding the implied quid pro quo for a foreign government surely falls within the intent of the law. But regardless of that outcome, 64% of Americans have been given more proof that TrumpCo is a lying pack of scumbags.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
You're confused; campaigns paying for political dirt isn't illegal (unless it was obtained illegally, of course). What's at issue is cases where they didn't pay for information and the FEC ruled that it was therefore a campaign contribution, because information has value. They have made such a ruling on contact lists, polling information, and campaign material. It turns out that one important factor is if someone else paid to collect the information. Good luck with that one.

But hey, Junior will not be going to jail, regardless, even though avoiding the implied quid pro quo for a foreign government surely falls within the intent of the law. But regardless of that outcome, 64% of Americans have been given more proof that TrumpCo is a lying pack of scumbags.
Click to expand...

Then again, his approval rating is up at 87% among Republicans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

It really is quite remarkable....
 
logger said:
You said it would be easy to find. Like Meadmaker I've never seen anyone pay for political dirt. I've seen it come freely many times, at least the receiver never indicated a cost. Same thing seems to have happen with jr.

You said it happens all the time, should be easy to find. I can't believe you're going to weasel out of this! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Before I post an example, I would like you first to define "political dirt".
Perhaps you could list some of the things you would accept as constituting "political dirt".
 
Octavo said:
Before I post an example, I would like you first to define "political dirt".
Perhaps you could list some of the things you would accept as constituting "political dirt".
Click to expand...

Ah, good. You're expecting a moving of the goalposts. You've learned well, my young apprentice.
 
Argumemnon said:
Ah, good. You're expecting a moving of the goalposts. You've learned well, my young apprentice.
Click to expand...


Lurking has its benefits. It's only a pity that theprestige isn't here, so we could all re-live the definition of common words argument. That seemed to go on forever. :p
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
You're confused; campaigns paying for political dirt isn't illegal (unless it was obtained illegally, of course). What's at issue is cases where they didn't pay for information and the FEC ruled that it was therefore a campaign contribution, because information has value. They have made such a ruling on contact lists, polling information, and campaign material. It turns out that one important factor is if someone else paid to collect the information. Good luck with that one, since Junior believed the information was coming from the Russian government.

But hey, Junior will not be going to jail, regardless, even though avoiding the implied quid pro quo for a foreign government surely falls within the intent of the law. But regardless of that outcome, 64% of Americans have been given more proof that TrumpCo is a lying pack of scumbags.
Click to expand...
Lol

I never said it was illegal and somehow I'm confused?
 
Octavo said:
Before I post an example, I would like you first to define "political dirt".
Perhaps you could list some of the things you would accept as constituting "political dirt".
Click to expand...

Might be better to post your example, then all can decide if it's political dirt that a campaign paid for.
 
logger said:
Lol

I never said it was illegal and somehow I'm confused?
Click to expand...

Yup, you're confused if you aren't aware that campaigns do pay outside consultants and companies to do oppo research, perfect legally, which pretty clearly establishes that it's a "thing of value."
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yup, you're confused if you aren't aware that campaigns do pay outside consultants and companies to do oppo research, perfect legally, which pretty clearly establishes that it's a "thing of value."
Click to expand...

You're giving the game away when the squirming is fun to watch. I wonder if he has bothered to actually read the wiki article on Opposition research yet.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah you shouldn't telegraph those goalpost movements.
Click to expand...

Trying to argue about the value of political dirt is already moving the goal post; the only serious argument is whether or not it's protected in this case by the First Amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that that argument might hold with respect to the information itself, in general at least, but the FEC has ruled that any resources expended in compiling that information is a separate "thing of value."
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah you shouldn't telegraph those goalpost movements.
Click to expand...

How is it goalpost moving?

You're asked to put up proof that campaigns pay for political dirt. How am I suppose to define it for you? You said it happens all the time, put up the examples so we can establish a value.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yup, you're confused if you aren't aware that campaigns do pay outside consultants and companies to do oppo research, perfect legally, which pretty clearly establishes that it's a "thing of value."
Click to expand...

then it should be easy to establish that value. Of course this information was free so there's the added burden of putting a value on something that was free.
 
uke2se said:
87% of Republicans isn't enough to be re-elected.
Click to expand...

Why not ?

Unless the Democratic Party come up with a genuinely enticing alternative, IMO there is a real risk that Democratic Party supporters will stay at home. Throw in a halfway credible Green Party candidate and that could be worse.

OTOH the GOP will be solidly behind their candidate AND they'll likely turn out to vote as opposed to staying at home and engaging in social media.

Someone on this board (I forget who) suggested that independents tend to favour the GOP so if that's the case a decent chunk of them will vote for the GOP candidate (33% actually actively approve of him).

Add in a bit of voter suppression and/or electoral roll purging in some key states and the U.S. could have another electoral college win/popular vote loss.
 
logger said:
then it should be easy to establish that value. Of course this information was free so there's the added burden of putting a value on something that was free.
Click to expand...

"This information was free" in exchange for considering repealing Magnitsky Act sanctions, which to anyone of integrity makes it even worse than paying cash for it.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Trying to argue about the value of political dirt is already moving the goal post; the only serious argument is whether or not it's protected in this case by the First Amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that that argument might hold with respect to the information itself, in general at least, but the FEC has ruled that any resources expended in compiling that information is a separate "thing of value."
Click to expand...

No, the real question is if information is freely given, does it have a monetary value? Can the court assign it a value and who is going to determine that amount?
 
WilliamSeger said:
"This information was free" in exchange for considering repealing Magnitsky Act sanctions, which to anyone of integrity makes it even worse than paying cash for it.
Click to expand...

Except the lawyer didn't have the information. Oh well.

Even if she did have it, was there a serious consideration? Oh well.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
You're asked to put up proof that campaigns pay for political dirt. How am I suppose to define it for you? You said it happens all the time, put up the examples so we can establish a value.
Click to expand...

How about this?

wikipedia said:
In the 1992 presidential campaign, Republicans reported that they spent $6 million on a "state of the art (opposition research) war machine" to investigate Bill Clinton, who was running against George H. W. Bush. In the same election, the Clinton campaign paid more than $100,000 to a private investigator to look into allegations about Clinton's womanizing, investigating more than two dozen women.
Click to expand...

Source
 
logger said:
Except the lawyer didn't have the information. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Your confusion about the campaign finance law is irrelevant; if a charge is made on that, it will be for soliciting an in-kind contribution. Furthermore, the lawyer did offer information but Deal Artist Junior didn't think it was worth what she was asking.
 
logger said:
Except the lawyer didn't have the information. Oh well.
Click to expand...

If you meet with a hitman to get your wife killed and it turns out the hitman is a cop, does it matter that you didn't get what you wanted?

Even if she did have it, was there a serious consideration? Oh well.[/QUOTE]

You continue to feign ignorance of the question asked and somehow I'm not paying attention.
Click to expand...

How am I feigning ignorance? What are you even babbling about?
 
logger said:
No, the real question is if information is freely given, does it have a monetary value? Can the court assign it a value and who is going to determine that amount?
Click to expand...

Any information the Russians (or anyone else) had could have been "freely given" to the press, if their only intent was to make the dirt public to hurt Hillary. But we're talking about a secret meeting to discuss quid pro quo, not "freely" giving the information, and the idea that a court would need to put a dollar amount on it is silly.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Any information the Russians (or anyone else) had could have been "freely given" to the press, if their only intent was to make the dirt public to hurt Hillary. But we're talking about a secret meeting to discuss quid pro quo, not "freely" giving the information, and the idea that a court would need to put a dollar amount on it is silly.
Click to expand...

No, I think we're talking about a lady who was making the rounds.
 
Argumemnon said:
If you meet with a hitman to get your wife killed and it turns out the hitman is a cop, does it matter that you didn't get what you wanted?

Even if she did have it, was there a serious consideration? Oh well.
Click to expand...

Interesting analogy, you seem to be quite invested.
How am I feigning ignorance? What are you even babbling about?
Click to expand...

I don't think you would understand.
 
Octavo said:
How about this?



Source
Click to expand...

You're getting closer. So another question would be, what is the actual information worth? Meaning the oppo team obviously adds what they think their time is worth. So would the authorities have to figure out what the actual information is worth? Since this non information came from a private source and not an oppo team.
 
The Don said:
Then again, his approval rating is up at 87% among Republicans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

It really is quite remarkable....
Click to expand...

I'd like them to add a category: how many Republicans have dropped their party affiliation and now call themselves independent? More than a few people have dropped out of the GOP Party. That would tend to concentrate Trump supporters and a shrinking denominator could explain a rising approval rating.
 
Argumemnon said:
Lol

In other words you just wrote that and didn't think I'd call your bluff.
Click to expand...

No, in other words it's a waste of time constantly going over ridiculous things with you. You simply cannot flow with conversation. Haven't you been told this before?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom