ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Mueller investigation , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , William Barr

Reply
Old 27th June 2020, 09:18 PM   #441
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
No, that wasn't my point. As has been made perfectly clear repeatedly. Nice try at the spin, though.



Alright. I'll take that as strong confirmation that you're a troll, if you're working to reset the discussion that quickly.

You haven't made a point. You've gish galloped with unrelated evidence to the claim that Russia funneled money through the NRA.

And you can't come up with a specific charge that you think Trump should have been charged with. Probably because you're afraid that someone would hold that charge to the same standard I'm holding your NRA charge.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 09:20 PM   #442
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Alright. I'll take that as strong confirmation that you're a troll, if you're working to reset the discussion that quickly.

I haven't reset anything. You've thrown a new claim into the discussion(more gish gallop), so I asked about it. Even though it was unrelated to your NRA claim.

Ad hominem not replied to.

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 27th June 2020 at 09:25 PM.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 09:34 PM   #443
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
You haven't made a point.
Perhaps try rereading what I originally posted for comprehension, then. What you did in response was to take a bit of that out of context and challenge it in a rather pointedly out of context way.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
You've gish galloped with unrelated evidence to the claim that Russia funneled money through the NRA.
Except that I didn't. Separately, though, the circumstantial evidence that the NRA likely did is fairly strong, yes. Not too different from hearing a gunshot and then right afterwards seeing a guy with a gun right next to a corpse that looks like it's been shot. It is, of course, plausible that the guy with the gun did nothing wrong. If the guy with the gun keeps giving answers with wide loopholes to defend himself on investigation and is generally being uncooperative and evasive, that's not at all indicative of innocence, though. If the guy's father steps in to forcefully squelch and suppress investigation into the matter, that's not at all indicative of innocence, either.

That's pretty much the position that we're in with the NRA and potential Russian funneling, after all, which is why your "defense" seems to be pathetically weak.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
And you can't come up with a specific charge that you think Trump should have been charged with. Probably because you're afraid that someone would hold that charge to the same standard I'm holding your NRA charge.
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I haven't reset anything. You've thrown a new claim into the discussion(more gish gallop), so I asked about it. Even though it was unrelated to your NRA claim.
Suuuuure. No reset, just ignoring the discussion that already happened to ask a question again after examples were given, when your flippant dismissal didn't work.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 27th June 2020 at 09:39 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 09:47 PM   #444
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Perhaps try rereading what I originally posted for comprehension, then. What you did in response was to take a bit of that out of context and challenge it in a rather pointedly out of context way.



Except that I didn't. Separately, though, the circumstantial evidence that the NRA likely did is fairly strong, yes. Not too different from hearing a gunshot and then right afterwards seeing a guy with a gun right next to a corpse that looks like it's been shot. It is, of course, plausible that the guy with the gun did nothing wrong. If the guy with the gun keeps giving answers with wide loopholes to defend himself on investigation and is generally being uncooperative and evasive, that's not at all indicative of innocence, though. If the guy's father steps in to forcefully squelch and suppress investigation into the matter, that's not at all indicative of innocence, either.

That's pretty much the position that we're in with the NRA and potential Russian funneling, after all, which is why your "defense" seems to be pathetically weak.




Suuuuure. No reset, just ignoring the discussion that already happened to ask a question again after examples were given, when your flippant dismissal didn't work.
I'm still waiting for you to post any specific evidence to the charge that Russia funneled money through the NRA. I'm also waiting for a response to this already being looked into by the FBI and Mueller, and why they don't report what you claim. As it is, your claim is dead in the water.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 09:53 PM   #445
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Suuuuure. No reset, just ignoring the discussion that already happened to ask a question again after examples were given, when your flippant dismissal didn't work.
A question is not a dismissal. However, refusing to answer a claim with a specific can be dismissed, which is what I did.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 09:58 PM   #446
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I'm still waiting for you to post any specific evidence to the charge that Russia funneled money through the NRA. I'm also waiting for a response to this already being looked into by the FBI and Mueller, and why they don't report what you claim. As it is, your claim is dead in the water.
I'm still waiting for you to give evidence that that was my claim. As well as that it's in any way reasonable to call it my claim even after multiple clarifications of the position that don't match the words that you want to put into my mouth.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
A question is not a dismissal. However, refusing to answer a claim with a specific can be dismissed, which is what I did.
A refusal to re-answer a question when it was answered and the other party tried to dismiss the answer on inane grounds is not a refusal to answer the question.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 27th June 2020 at 10:02 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 11:00 PM   #447
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
There is. I have no problem with saying that it's not proof, though[/color]
"There is"

You claimed there was evidence that the NRA funneled Russian money. Then you gish galloped through a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with Russia funneling money through the NRA. Now you're saying you didn't say there was evidence.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 11:03 PM   #448
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
There is. I have no problem with saying that it's not proof, though
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
I'm still waiting for you to give evidence that that was my claim.
Ummm ok. Now what? Will you gish gallop again, or do you retract the claim that there is evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA?

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 27th June 2020 at 11:04 PM.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 11:10 PM   #449
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Except that I didn't. Separately, though, the circumstantial evidence that the NRA likely did is fairly strong, yes. Not too different from hearing a gunshot and then right afterwards seeing a guy with a gun right next to a corpse that looks like it's been shot. It is, of course, plausible that the guy with the gun did nothing wrong. If the guy with the gun keeps giving answers with wide loopholes to defend himself on investigation and is generally being uncooperative and evasive, that's not at all indicative of innocence, though. If the guy's father steps in to forcefully squelch and suppress investigation into the matter, that's not at all indicative of innocence, either.
You're going to have to try harder since Mueller and the FBI already looked into Russian interference and this in particular. This false equivalence of your's doesn't pass muster. Just for kicks though, who was the father? Mueller? Talk about fringe reset.

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 27th June 2020 at 11:25 PM.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2020, 11:51 PM   #450
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
"There is"

You claimed there was evidence that the NRA funneled Russian money. Then you gish galloped through a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with Russia funneling money through the NRA. Now you're saying you didn't say there was evidence.
Fundamentally, you're trying to claim that circumstantial evidence isn't evidence, which is a nonsensical argument, especially when there's a fair bit of circumstantial evidence. Regardless, I apologize. I was continuing to focus on your initial attempt to attack what I said at the start on out of context grounds and because your argument hasn't changed since, I continued to treat it as you still attacking what was said initially. It's still pathetically weak, of course, but, I suppose that it's more relevant to later points made than it was in the beginning.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Ummm ok. Now what? Will you gish gallop again, or do you retract the claim that there is evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA?
You still don't know what gish galloping is, I see. "Gish galloping" is not what's been happening. Providing context (and circumstantial evidence) is not gish galloping, after all.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
You're going to have to try harder since Mueller and the FBI already looked into Russian interference and this in particular. This false equivalence of your's doesn't pass muster. Just for kicks though, who was the father? Mueller?
Not the brightest bulb, are you?

To address Mueller specifically, Mueller was actually poked at in my original statement, as you might not recall. Mueller using a version of what constitutes campaign finance violations that's been specifically forbidden by Congress and ruled against in a court of law means that trying to invoke Mueller on the subject of campaign finance is laughable, at best. You can keep trying to blindly invoke the FBI, of course, while conveniently ignoring how there's a very good chance that they would have just let Mueller handle that and, well, Barr. Speaking more about Barr would bring us back a bit to the beginning, of course, given Barr's continual actions to try to protect Trump, including how he very quickly ended multiple FBI investigations directly related to Mueller's investigation, though the specifics of what the investigations were have not been made public, to my knowledge.

As for the father, those FEC Republicans rather look like they count, though there's a larger trend within the GOP to oppose or at the very least minimize and defund enforcement of campaign finance regulations (and white collar crime in general), so a credible argument can be made for the Republican Party itself.

Mildly related to that, I'll poke you towards a contextually relevant statement to that from CREW addressing the FEC, again, in the unlikely chance that you have any interest in actually educating yourself. This is general picture context, though, rather than Russia related specifically, since you seem to have incredible difficulty understanding the difference.

We’re Still Waiting on Explanations From the Republican FEC Commissioners
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 28th June 2020 at 12:23 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 12:13 AM   #451
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Fundamentally, you're trying to claim that circumstantial evidence isn't evidence, which is a nonsensical argument, especially when there's a fair bit of circumstantial evidence.

We’re Still Waiting on Explanations From the Republican FEC Commissioners
There is no circumstantial evidence of the Russians giving any funds to the NRA. And your link provides none.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 12:24 AM   #452
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
There is no circumstantial evidence of the Russians giving any funds to the NRA. And your link provides none.
Yup. Troll. Dishonest quoting, denial of what's been posted, and completely ignoring the context in general.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 12:27 AM   #453
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
You still don't know what gish galloping is, I see. "Gish galloping" is not what's been happening. Providing context (and circumstantial evidence) is not gish galloping, after all.



Not the brightest bulb, are you?


We’re Still Waiting on Explanations From the Republican FEC Commissioners
You most certainly gish galloped when asked for specific evidence of Russia funneling money through the NRA. Nothing provided had any evidence to show Russia funneling money through the NRA. Yet you pointed to the links and said "here it is." Although the information provided showed no such thing, it just rehashed cases that had already concluded in which any evidence of the claim would have come to light. You are free to wildly speculate about conspiracy theories that aren't based on any fact and call it circumstantial.

Your attack on Mueller with regard to campaign finance would have merit if not for the money laundering aspect that would have had to have taken place. Mueller certainly would have prosecuted that charge if it had merit. Your own links reported that it was being looked into both by Mueller and the FBI. You can fringe reset the issue all you want. It won't change the fact that there is no evidence for the claim that the Russians funneled money through the NRA.

Ad Hominem not responded to.

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 28th June 2020 at 12:28 AM.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 12:32 AM   #454
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Yup. Troll. Dishonest quoting, denial of what's been posted, and completely ignoring the context in general.
There is no context, it's speculation about concluded cases, already investigated by the FBI and Mueller. You claiming it's "circumstantial" evidence that Russia funneled money through the NRA is a fantasy, wild speculation, and conspiratorial thinking all wrapped into one.

Ad Hominem not responded to.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 12:37 AM   #455
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
You most certainly gish galloped when asked for specific evidence of Russia funneling money through the NRA.
Evidence was provided regarding the validity of an FEC investigation and that the Republicans squelched any FEC investigation. Which is in line with what I had originally said on that matter.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Your attack on Mueller with regard to campaign finance would have merit if not for the money laundering aspect that would have had to have taken place. Mueller certainly would have prosecuted that charge if it had merit. Your own links reported that it was being looked into both by Mueller and the FBI.
And Mueller shipped off a bunch of investigations and information off to the FBI when he was ending things, with Barr promptly ending a number of those investigations and generally having quite shown his willingness to interfere on Trump's behalf. Your attempted defense doesn't actually work all that well. It also most certainly doesn't justify the FEC Republican refusal to investigate at the time. Had they properly investigated and found the NRA to be clean, we fairly certainly wouldn't be having this discussion, regardless.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Ad Hominem not responded to.
Ad hominem? The only negative things that I've stated, like "troll" have been in direct response to you giving more than ample evidence of their truth and making it perfectly clear why you earned said label. It's up to you whether to change your ways to be more honest or not.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 28th June 2020 at 12:47 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 12:51 AM   #456
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Evidence was provided regarding the validity of an FEC investigation and that the Republicans squelched any FEC investigation. Which is in line with what I had originally said on that matter.
"No, you are misunderstanding my question. You claimed "The FEC's been crippled to the point where the Republicans on it literally stopped all FEC investigation into even the NRA's involvement in funneling Russian money into our elections."

I'm interested in this part specifically, "the NRA's involvement in funneling Russian money into our elections." What is the current evidence for this that warrants an investigation? Thanks."

Your response was this link

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/76487...report-reveals

Which part in there is the evidence that Russia funneled money through the NRA for campaigns?
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:00 AM   #457
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post

And Mueller shipped off a bunch of investigations and information off to the FBI when he was ending things, with Barr promptly ending a number of those investigations and generally having quite shown his willingness to interfere on Trump's behalf. Your attempted defense doesn't actually work all that well. It also most certainly doesn't justify the FEC Republican refusal to investigate at the time. Had they properly investigated and found the NRA to be clean, we fairly certainly wouldn't be having this discussion, regardless.

1. Which investigations did Barr end that Mueller had passed off to the FBI?

2. "Evidence was provided regarding the validity of an FEC investigation and that the Republicans squelched any FEC investigation. Which is in line with what I had originally said on that matter."

The validity of an FEC investigation would stand or fall on any evidence that the Russians funneled money through the NRA. You've yet to post any. None of the links or sources provide any evidence of the claim. If they did you would have surely brought the specific evidence into the discussion. I've seen you point to unrelated cases which were investigated in which no evidence exists for the "Russia funneled money through the NRA."
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:04 AM   #458
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
"No, you are misunderstanding my question. You claimed "The FEC's been crippled to the point where the Republicans on it literally stopped all FEC investigation into even the NRA's involvement in funneling Russian money into our elections."

I'm interested in this part specifically, "the NRA's involvement in funneling Russian money into our elections." What is the current evidence for this that warrants an investigation? Thanks."
Alright, because this is getting boring, I'll quote what I just said.

Quote:
Your attempted defense doesn't actually work all that well. It also most certainly doesn't justify the FEC Republican refusal to investigate at the time. Had they properly investigated and found the NRA to be clean, we fairly certainly wouldn't be having this discussion, regardless.
You asking for the current evidence is not particularly relevant to what you quoted, though it's also true that very little has changed since then, on the direct front. Plenty more has come out that's relevant to being notably more untrusting towards any semblance of honor and honesty in the NRA, though.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Your response was this link

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/76487...report-reveals

Which part in there is the evidence that Russia funneled money through the NRA for campaigns?
And this is why I'm calling you a troll. That was not my response to that question. I'd go so far as to call that a brazen lie, no less.

Here, though, what I said in that post.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Hmm? By the sound of it, you're effectively asking for proof that it did happen, after further investigation into the matter was blocked.

You've already been given links that largely deal with the question that you just asked, after all. Read the FEC statement, for example. More can be added, but more does not need to be added.

Related on the general topic, incidentally, though perhaps not as relevant to your specific question -

NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals
Highlighting added, because you seem to want to intentionally and bafflingly lie about what I said. Well, it'd be baffling if you aren't actually a troll, at least.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:14 AM   #459
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
1. Which investigations did Barr end that Mueller had passed off to the FBI?
The specifics were not revealed to the public, as far as I know. Which leaves us in an annoying limbo.

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
2. "Evidence was provided regarding the validity of an FEC investigation and that the Republicans squelched any FEC investigation. Which is in line with what I had originally said on that matter."

The validity of an FEC investigation would stand or fall on any evidence that the Russians funneled money through the NRA. You've yet to post any. None of the links or sources provide any evidence of the claim. If they did you would have surely brought the specific evidence into the discussion. I've seen you point to unrelated cases which were investigated in which no evidence exists for the "Russia funneled money through the NRA."
From that last CREW link -

Quote:
The commissioners’ explanation is an important part of the agency’s process. Before the agency can investigate a possible violation of campaign finance law, four members of the Commission—a six-member panel consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans (one of the Democratic slots is currently filled by an independent)—must vote to authorize the investigation. The commissioners vote on recommendations brought to them by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”), the agency’s legal office consisting of nonpartisan staff attorneys who are experts in the field of campaign finance law. The OGC may recommend an investigation based on its conclusion that there is a “reason to believe” a violation may have occurred. This is a low standard under federal law: it simply means the agency believes a violation has been credibly alleged and may have occurred and that the agency wants to take a closer look. It does not mean that a violation has been found. Nor is it the Commission’s final say over the proceeding. After the investigation, the OGC recommends whether to find “probable cause to believe” a person has committed a violation—a higher standard of proof than that imposed at the initial “reason to believe” stage—and the FEC may seek sanctions only if a majority of the Commission agrees with the OGC’s assessment. If three or more commissioners do not agree with either the OGC’s recommendation to investigate or its recommendation to find probable cause based on that investigation, those commissioners must explain their rejection of the staff’s expert opinions.
The standard that you're trying to set seems to be a case of your "common sense" being wrong, as "common sense" is so frequently - and, as the link goes into in more depth, the Republican FEC members have a history of not abiding by the rules to block investigations that have distinctly credible cause, which also is of distinct relevance to the point that I had made.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 28th June 2020 at 01:18 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:40 AM   #460
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
The specifics were not revealed to the public, as far as I know. Which leaves us in an annoying limbo.



From that last CREW link -



The standard that you're trying to set seems to be a case of your "common sense" being wrong, as "common sense" is so frequently - and, as the link goes into in more depth, the Republican FEC members have a history of not abiding by the rules to block investigations that have distinctly credible cause, which also is of distinct relevance to the point that I had made.
Again, the CREW link means nothing in regard to the claim. There is no evidence for the claim. So the FEC has no valid reason to investigate. I could just as easily say the other side on the FEC want a fishing expedition with no probable cause for the allegation.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:43 AM   #461
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Alright, because this is getting boring, I'll quote what I just said.



You asking for the current evidence is not particularly relevant to what you quoted, though it's also true that very little has changed since then, on the direct front. Plenty more has come out that's relevant to being notably more untrusting towards any semblance of honor and honesty in the NRA, though.



And this is why I'm calling you a troll. That was not my response to that question. I'd go so far as to call that a brazen lie, no less.

Here, though, what I said in that post.



Highlighting added, because you seem to want to intentionally and bafflingly lie about what I said. Well, it'd be baffling if you aren't actually a troll, at least.
So in fact, there is no evidence for the claim that Russia funneled money through the NRA. Just a lot of huffing and puffing from one side of the FEC to do a fishing expedition, based on...............allegations and speculation. Thanks for finally admitting it.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:46 AM   #462
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
The specifics were not revealed to the public, as far as I know. Which leaves us in an annoying limbo.
So another allegation that can't be proven. I guess it's like the dossier was around here. "Well it hasn't been disproven." Try that in a real thread like say the JFK assassination, see how far you get.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:50 AM   #463
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post

The standard that you're trying to set seems to be a case of your "common sense" being wrong, as "common sense" is so frequently - and, as the link goes into in more depth, the Republican FEC members have a history of not abiding by the rules to block investigations that have distinctly credible cause, which also is of distinct relevance to the point that I had made.
I'm not the one touting rank speculation and crying a river because no one will do anything about my conspiracy theory.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 02:17 AM   #464
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Again, the CREW link means nothing in regard to the claim. There is no evidence for the claim. So the FEC has no valid reason to investigate. I could just as easily say the other side on the FEC want a fishing expedition with no probable cause for the allegation.
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
So in fact, there is no evidence for the claim that Russia funneled money through the NRA. Just a lot of huffing and puffing from one side of the FEC to do a fishing expedition, based on...............allegations and speculation. Thanks for finally admitting it.
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
So another allegation that can't be proven. I guess it's like the dossier was around here. "Well it hasn't been disproven." Try that in a real thread like say the JFK assassination, see how far you get.
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I'm not the one touting rank speculation and crying a river because no one will do anything about my conspiracy theory.


You're admitting that you've got nothing and refuse to converse honestly even after being directly caught brazenly lying? Okay. As you wish. When your arguments seem to consistently rest on lying about what I said and how I was using things, you're just consistently proving yourself to be dishonest.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 28th June 2020 at 02:20 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 04:40 AM   #465
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 6,306
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Which crime do you think Trump should have been charged with if not for the OLC memo?
1) As “Individual 1”, he was a participant in exactly the same scheme that landed Michael Cohen in jail. So, campaign finance crimes to start.

2) Have your read Part 2 of the Mueller Report? About a dozen cases were put forward where all 3 elements of Obstruction of Justice by the President were laid out. Where he committed an act that affected an ongoing investigation with corrupt intent. So, any of those gave the probable cause basis with which to charge. The report even stated the OLC memo as one reason he was not charged.

Nothing personal, but it seems like you’re not debating in good faith. As such, I may or may not wish to engage in a back-and-forth with you. Please don’t interpret such as acquiescence - I just don’t like to waste my time on lost causes.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 06:35 AM   #466
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,971
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
The same Michael Cohen Trump wants in jail? I never thought I'd see the day Squeegee agreed with Trump, but here we are.
Never? Not since May 2020 when you first joined the site, you mean, right?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 06:50 AM   #467
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,040
All the evidence shows that Trump broke many laws. But evidence only matters if you care about it. Trumpanzees would rather pretend that no laws were broken, that Trump's only crime is being a Republican.

The reality is that if Trump was a Democratic party president and did these same things, he would have been impeached and removed from office and possibly in prison. For a couple a reason. First, the Republicans would lead the charge to impeach him and imprison him. Second, Democrats would not break laws to protect him and would join the effort to hold him accountable.
This is the difference between the parties. One party cares about the rule of law, the other party is beholden to power.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 03:07 AM   #468
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,971
Self over party, party over country.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:42 PM   #469
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
1) As “Individual 1”, he was a participant in exactly the same scheme that landed Michael Cohen in jail. So, campaign finance crimes to start.

2) Have your read Part 2 of the Mueller Report? About a dozen cases were put forward where all 3 elements of Obstruction of Justice by the President were laid out. Where he committed an act that affected an ongoing investigation with corrupt intent. So, any of those gave the probable cause basis with which to charge. The report even stated the OLC memo as one reason he was not charged.

Nothing personal, but it seems like you’re not debating in good faith. As such, I may or may not wish to engage in a back-and-forth with you. Please don’t interpret such as acquiescence - I just don’t like to waste my time on lost causes.
You are quite right, and those instances in the Mueller Report could be construed as obstruction, he could be charged. My original question was to a poster complaining about the NRA funneling Russian money, which there is zero evidence for. I was attempting to see what other alleged crime he would come up with. Although I don't think many of the instances of obstruction in the Mueller report would hold up. Such as asking Comey about letting go of the Flynn stuff, or firing Comey, or the attempts to fire Mueller.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:46 PM   #470
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post


You're admitting that you've got nothing and refuse to converse honestly even after being directly caught brazenly lying? Okay. As you wish. When your arguments seem to consistently rest on lying about what I said and how I was using things, you're just consistently proving yourself to be dishonest.
I wasn't caught lying about anything. My original question was asking for evidence of NRA funneling Russian money to campaigns. You kept posting everything you could to insinuate there was evidence. You could have easily avoided any confusion by simply saying "No, there is no evidence that the Russians funneled money through the NRA." But in doing so you would have to explain why members the FEC are so horrible for not authorizing a fishing expedition for a "crime" that there is no evidence for.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:48 PM   #471
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Never? Not since May 2020 when you first joined the site, you mean, right?

The idea that someone can start posting in a freely read forum in 2020, but not have been lurking for years is short sighted. Which is no surprise coming from a Seth Abramson accolite.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:51 PM   #472
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
All the evidence shows that Trump broke many laws. But evidence only matters if you care about it. Trumpanzees would rather pretend that no laws were broken, that Trump's only crime is being a Republican.

The reality is that if Trump was a Democratic party president and did these same things, he would have been impeached and removed from office and possibly in prison. For a couple a reason. First, the Republicans would lead the charge to impeach him and imprison him. Second, Democrats would not break laws to protect him and would join the effort to hold him accountable.
This is the difference between the parties. One party cares about the rule of law, the other party is beholden to power.
So we only need to look at the R or D next to anyone's name, got it.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 07:45 PM   #473
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,683
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
So we only need to look at the R or D next to anyone's name, got it.
Sad, but true.

When Trump falls out of favor with conservatives, how will we know? Fox News will put his name on screen with a 'D' next to it.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:53 PM   #474
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
I wasn't caught lying about anything.


Yes, you were. You lied, repeatedly, about what I said and how I was using things. I directly called you out on it in post #458 with proof, though that was hardly the first case of you doing exactly what I called out.

There's no point discussing much further with you when you keep lying so brazenly and incompetently.

Still, I could also easily poke at, for example, #462 and #463, though, where your replies were so utterly inane and disconnected from the conversation prior to that that they deserve naught more than ridicule, if one needed any more reason to think that there's no reason to expect intelligent discussion with you.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 29th June 2020 at 10:04 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:51 AM   #475
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post


Yes, you were. You lied, repeatedly, about what I said and how I was using things. I directly called you out on it in post #458 with proof, though that was hardly the first case of you doing exactly what I called out.

There's no point discussing much further with you when you keep lying so brazenly and incompetently.

Still, I could also easily poke at, for example, #462 and #463, though, where your replies were so utterly inane and disconnected from the conversation prior to that that they deserve naught more than ridicule, if one needed any more reason to think that there's no reason to expect intelligent discussion with you.

Anyone can look at my original question and your lengthy answers and see that the last thing you wanted to say and in fact never said was "No, there is no evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA."

I can understand not wanting a discussion with someone who points out that there is no basis for the investigation you're crying about not happening.

Last edited by TahiniBinShawarma; 30th June 2020 at 06:02 AM.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 09:17 AM   #476
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Anyone can look at my original question and your lengthy answers and see that the last thing you wanted to say and in fact never said was "No, there is no evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA."

I can understand not wanting a discussion with someone who points out that there is no basis for the investigation you're crying about not happening.


You directly and repeatedly lied about what I actually said and how I used a number of things. Yes, anyone can look at what was said and it's not hard to see who was not discussing in good faith.



Let's review the NRA situation, though, to sum things up a little.

1. Russia engaged in a "massive and unprecedented" effort to interfere with our elections in 2016.
2. Russia successfully compromised the NRA for an extended period of time.
3. NRA political spending skyrocketed by over $100 million in its efforts to influence our 2016 elections, with a very large portion of that being dark money.
4. The NRA has been having significant internal and financial issues, including a fair bit of notable corruption.

Putting those things together serves perfectly well as good and responsible reason for deeper investigation into potential illegal money funneling, despite your attempts to try to classify any investigation into them under such circumstances as a fishing trip and thinking that there was notably more appropriate action that the FEC should have taken under the circumstances to be conspiracy theory thinking.


"But, but, but Mueller and the FBI did investigate and would have found something by now if there was anything to find," you tried to argue simultaneously with your "fishing trip" and "conspiracy theory" inanity.

1. That attempted argument falls apart in the face of reality. Mueller pushed a number of investigations off to the FBI and Barr pretty much immediately ended a number of them. Furthermore, given Barr's words and behavior, past and present, it would be entirely expected for him to do his best to squelch investigation into NRA finances to protect Trump and the Republican party if there was any chance that they were involved in money funneling, to the point where it would actually be more surprising if he didn't.

Naturally, this doesn't mean that Barr necessarily did shut down investigation into the NRA, which would require more evidence to be able to assert, just that your attempted argument fails.

2. All this is still irrelevant to the original point that I was making when I brought up the NRA. That was about how the FEC's then effective and currently literal inability to do anything about any potential Trump/Trump campaign campaign finance violations and felonies serves as one part of the context for why Trump and campaign have been let off the hook on that front.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 30th June 2020 at 09:25 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 10:25 AM   #477
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 28,971
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
The idea that someone can start posting in a freely read forum in 2020, but not have been lurking for years is short sighted. Which is no surprise coming from a Seth Abramson accolite.
Hoo-boy!
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 10:30 AM   #478
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post


You directly and repeatedly lied about what I actually said and how I used a number of things. Yes, anyone can look at what was said and it's not hard to see who was not discussing in good faith.



Let's review the NRA situation, though, to sum things up a little.

1. Russia engaged in a "massive and unprecedented" effort to interfere with our elections in 2016.
2. Russia successfully compromised the NRA for an extended period of time.
3. NRA political spending skyrocketed by over $100 million in its efforts to influence our 2016 elections, with a very large portion of that being dark money.
4. The NRA has been having significant internal and financial issues, including a fair bit of notable corruption.

Putting those things together serves perfectly well as good and responsible reason for deeper investigation into potential illegal money funneling, despite your attempts to try to classify any investigation into them under such circumstances as a fishing trip and thinking that there was notably more appropriate action that the FEC should have taken under the circumstances to be conspiracy theory thinking.


"But, but, but Mueller and the FBI did investigate and would have found something by now if there was anything to find," you tried to argue simultaneously with your "fishing trip" and "conspiracy theory" inanity.

1. That attempted argument falls apart in the face of reality. Mueller pushed a number of investigations off to the FBI and Barr pretty much immediately ended a number of them. Furthermore, given Barr's words and behavior, past and present, it would be entirely expected for him to do his best to squelch investigation into NRA finances to protect Trump and the Republican party if there was any chance that they were involved in money funneling, to the point where it would actually be more surprising if he didn't.

Naturally, this doesn't mean that Barr necessarily did shut down investigation into the NRA, which would require more evidence to be able to assert, just that your attempted argument fails.

2. All this is still irrelevant to the original point that I was making when I brought up the NRA. That was about how the FEC's then effective and currently literal inability to do anything about any potential Trump/Trump campaign campaign finance violations and felonies serves as one part of the context for why Trump and campaign have been let off the hook on that front.
Yeah, I get it now, you want Trump investigated again for non specific "potential" felonies, but it's not a fishing expedition or conspiracy theory like "Russian Collusion."
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 10:59 AM   #479
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,417
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Yeah, I get it now, you want Trump investigated again for non specific "potential" felonies, but it's not a fishing expedition or conspiracy theory like "Russian Collusion."
I get it. You're too busy trying to defend your preconceptions reflexively that you don't care what's actually being communicated and whether you make a fool of yourself as you try to do so.

Maybe someday you'll be ready to read for comprehension of what's actually being said, challenging as it might be to your preconceptions, rather than actively trying to put words into others' mouths.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 11:49 AM   #480
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,683
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
"But, but, but Mueller and the FBI did investigate and would have found something by now if there was anything to find," you tried to argue simultaneously with your "fishing trip" and "conspiracy theory" inanity.

1. That attempted argument falls apart in the face of reality. Mueller pushed a number of investigations off to the FBI and Barr pretty much immediately ended a number of them.
So TahiniBinShawarma is technically correct. there is no evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA, because they didn't look for it!

But is that true? Is there any evidence that they did look for it, but couldn't find any?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.