Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

And can you still support him?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Yeah, that's the one. It's been cited here on multiple occasions, despite MM's claim to the contrary.
    Thanks. The quote in your sig helps create additional perspective ...
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ignorant Roy View Post
      Yeah, that's the one. It's been cited here on multiple occasions...
      "No judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign -finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts."
      -Special Counsel Robert "Dirty Cop" Mueller

      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Yup. This has been brought up by several attorneys on various 'talking head' shows. Apparently when the law was written the authors had money or physical goods in mind -- not things like information.
        I disagree. "anything of value" is meant to be very broad, and to leave room for things not specified in the law itself. It is clear the authors had every intent to make sure foreign nations could not create an indebtedness to them on the part of the candidate. That is what gifts do, that is what donations do, they create a tit for tat relationship. This is what lobbies rely on. They give to a candidate, but they expect that candidate to return the favor by looking out for their interests.

        What the statute is trying to prevent is a debt to a foreign nation that could create a motivation to look out for the best interests of that other nation rather than the US. "Anything of value" then is just that - "anything" of value. Information about the weaknesses or failings of an opponent is in fact 'something' of value. And in fact in case after case historically money is in fact exchanged for such information. And in point of fact exactly such a case was used to try to derail this thread. Money, a significant amount, was paid to gather just such information. So the idea such information is not a 'thing of value' is absolutely ludicrous.

        But the reality is Trump did the same thing and violated the same law by meeting in Trump tower to ostensibly receive information (dirt) on his opponent. And it is even more troubling that this valuable information was to be given, not bought. Because now we have a debt that must be repaid to the agent behind the giver: Russia.

        And that is EXACTLY what this statute is meant to prevent, or at least make illegal.


        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-22-2019, 08:11 PM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Yup. This has been brought up by several attorneys on various 'talking head' shows. Apparently when the law was written the authors had money or physical goods in mind -- not things like information.
          This is one of the evil things about lawyers. If no law applies, they will try to bend and squeeze one to make it fit. Not a coincidence that "lawyer" sounds so much like "liar."
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          Nationalist Christian.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

          Justice for Matthew Perna!

          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            I disagree. "anything of value" is meant to be very broad, and to leave room for things not specified in the law itself. It is clear the authors had every intent to make sure foreign nations could not create an indebtedness to them on the part of the candidate. That is what gifts do, that is what donations do, they create a tit for tat relationship. This is what lobbies rely on. They give to a candidate, but they expect that candidate to return the favor by looking out for their interests.

            What the statute is trying to prevent is a debt to a foreign nation that could create a motivation to look out for the best interests of that other nation rather than the US. "Anything of value" then is just that - "anything" of value. Information about the weaknesses or failings of an opponent is in fact 'something' of value. And in fact in case after case historically money is in fact exchanged for such information. And in point of fact exactly such a case was used to try to derail this thread. Money, a significant amount, was paid to gather just such information. So the idea such information is not a 'thing of value' is absolutely ludicrous.

            But the reality is Trump did the same thing and violated the same law by meeting in Trump tower to ostensibly receive information (dirt) on his opponent. And it is even more troubling that this valuable information was to be given, not bought. Because now we have a debt that must be repaid to the agent behind the giver: Russia.

            And that is EXACTLY what this statute is meant to prevent, or at least make illegal.


            Jim
            So you are saying that the law was meant to prevent true statements about political opponents from being shared by foreign nationals?

            And you are saying that the law, although written about things of reasonably discerned monetary value, was really directed against sharing knowledge with a political candidate?

            Did you know that the first method of interpretation of a law is based on the wording of the law, not what the legislators intended? Then, the intent (as documented in the debates and circumstances leading to the law) is applied, only to clarify the scope of the law and ambiguous wording. So where is the wording found which shows that revelation about truths of opponents is illegal when shared by foreign nationals?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              He said he lacked the evidence to reach that conclusion that he did, and top DOJ officials agreed.
              However, the meeting did happen - right? That that meeting happened, surely required investigation as to the relationship between the two parties? Meanwhile a number of Trumps associates were involved in criminal activities, involving foreign powers. It again, seems reasonable to investigate whether, he too, was involved? Trump clearly wasn't doing due diligence on his people, else, how did they get into positions of power around him?

              Since the thread is called 'And you can still support him?' I too have a few question about why people of religious stripe, support Trump.

              As far as I can tell, Trump is a (pathological) liar, a womanizer and ran a gambling business. Each of these are sins or are unethical in their own right. It is unclear what his religious stance actually is, he was signing his name on bibles at one stage - which seems absurd.

              He is almost the definition of the swamp (monster) - but the republican swamp rather than the democratic one. Both are equally disgusting in my opinion. He is a billionaire 1% elite, which has effectively stacked the government with elites or people with clear corporate interest in writing the rules to suite them and sticking it to the rest of the US - and frankly the rest of the world. The deficit is now at insane levels, he continues to support the military industrial complex with billions extra on defense, corporate lobbyists are now writing US laws while getting rid of things that protect people (largely poor people) from harm.

              Would Jesus seriously have voted for this guy? I suspect Jesus would have stopped him lying, and, once that happens his confidence trick would fail to impress.
              Last edited by Zara; 06-23-2019, 05:16 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                Would Jesus seriously have voted for this guy?
                If we applied your reasoning consistently, would Jesus have voted for anybody? Every candidate is morally flawed to one degree or another (nevermind that President Trump is nowhere near as bad as your "cartoon villain" caricature of him).

                I've seen this kind of hypocrisy before, where someone will invoke the name of Jesus to try and guilt Christians into changing their political opinions, which ironically is exactly the sort of hypocrisy that Jesus regularly condemned in scripture.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                  So you are saying that the law was meant to prevent true statements about political opponents from being shared by foreign nationals?
                  The law's purpose is two-fold: to keep foreign nationals from being able (1) to buy/own candidates or (2) to manipulate the outcome of elections towards a candidate the prefer to see in office.

                  And you are saying that the law, although written about things of reasonably discerned monetary value, was really directed against sharing knowledge with a political candidate?
                  The law doesn't use the words 'reasonably discerned', it uses the words 'or anything of value'. The law is not directed at any specific method beyond the use of 'things of value'. It begins with contribution and donation, and then expands the scope to 'anything of value'. So literally, the law's aim then is to keep foreign nationals from gifting ANYTHING of value to US candidates. And conversely, to keep US candidates from seeking out ANYTHING of value from foreign nationals.

                  Suppose I need paper to print pamphlets for my campaign. So someone can give me money to get the paper, or someone could give me the paper. Either way, it's illegal if it's a foreign national. Likewise, lets suppose I need dirt on an opponent to reduce their standing in the polls. So someone can give me the money to use to buy that information, or someone can just give the information to me. Either way, it's illegal if that someone is a foreign national.

                  Did you know that the first method of interpretation of a law is based on the wording of the law, not what the legislators intended? Then, the intent (as documented in the debates and circumstances leading to the law) is applied, only to clarify the scope of the law and ambiguous wording. So where is the wording found which shows that revelation about truths of opponents is illegal when shared by foreign nationals?
                  Exactly - and following that principle: the wording is 'anything of value'. Given that people can and have - recently - paid significant sums of money for such information, it is ludicrous to claim such information is not a 'thing of value'.

                  Jim
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-23-2019, 07:47 AM.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    If we applied your reasoning consistently, would Jesus have voted for anybody? Every candidate is morally flawed to one degree or another (nevermind that President Trump is nowhere near as bad as your "cartoon villain" caricature of him).
                    Sorry, what cartoon villainy are you about? And what do the failure of others have to do with the failure of this man? Have you heard the tape about the grabbing of women; have you seen him lie, again, and again and again? He lies so much, it's literally hard to know if he's telling the truth or not. Lying is a sin.

                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    I've seen this kind of hypocrisy before, where someone will invoke the name of Jesus to try and guilt Christians into changing their political opinions, which ironically is exactly the sort of hypocrisy that Jesus regularly condemned in scripture.
                    The only hypocrite is a person that says that they are religious of type x, and then lives a life in almost complete contradiction with the Word of that religion. I.e., most money loving people, including Trump and his corporate lackeys. Ohh but God gave us these gifts, we are blessed - while they destroy earth and create extreme social inequalities. I hope (why hope it seems like a sure thing given their level of moral corruption) none of these people get into heaven and that they suffer in hell.

                    The problem seems to be a very bad case of confirmation bias on the part of many trump supporters - I won't say "republicans" because I know many actually can't stand the man. I see you ignored anything that you can't easily fob off ;)
                    Last edited by Zara; 06-23-2019, 07:57 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                      Sorry, what cartoon villainy are you about? And what do the failure of others have to do with the failure of this man? Have you heard the tape about the grabbing of women; have you seen him lie, again, and again and again? He lies so much, it's literally hard to know if he's telling the truth or not. Lying is a sin.
                      Your exaggerated opinion of President Trump does not necessarily reflect reality.

                      Originally posted by Zara View Post
                      The only hypocrite is a person that says that they are religious of type x, and then lives a life in almost complete contradiction with the Word of that religion. I.e., most money loving people, including Trump and his corporate lackeys. Ohh but God gave us these gifts, we are blessed - while they destroy earth and create extreme social inequalities. I hope (why hope it seems like a sure thing given their level of moral corruption) none of these people get into heaven and that they suffer in hell.

                      The problem seems to be a very bad case of confirmation bias on the part of many trump supporters - I won't say "republicans" because I know many actually can't stand the man. I see you ignored anything that you can't easily fob off ;)
                      And which candidate in the last presidential election, including primary challengers, could Christians have safely voted for that would have made them immune to the criticism of hypocrites like you?
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        I don't really understand what the point is you're trying to make. The russians wanted to give the trump administration information they could use to help the win the election. That information has value. It may not have a price on it in $$$, but that is the point.

                        The reason it is illegal to take 'things of value' from a foreign nation whether or not they have an explicit monetary value is that we do not want foreign nations having the capacity to manipulate or control our leaders. Once help has been accepted, a debt is implied. That debt has to be paid. And payment comes in the form of favorable policy or legislation for the nation(s) providing the information or help.

                        To suggest such an exchange doesn't happen is to be ignorant of the history of the world.

                        To suggest preventing such an exchange is not the point of the statute is to be ignorant of the philosophy and driving force behind much of the reason for the structure and form of our government.

                        As i wrote earlier, 'any thing of value' would necessarily cover those things that do not involve a direct monetary value, but which can incur a debt - again not necessarily of direct monetary value.

                        Jim
                        And Trump intended to repay the debt by removing the Russian sanctions put on them by Obama, but congress, even with the support of republicans, blocked him from doing so.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Your exaggerated opinion of President Trump does not necessarily reflect reality.
                          Sorry, he lies often, not always. I do not even think I need to come with examples? Or do you want examples of some of the more egregious ones? How many people were at his inauguration again, and why does it matter - ohh, because ego?

                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          And which candidate in the last presidential election, including primary challengers, could Christians have safely voted for that would have made them immune to the criticism of hypocrites like you?
                          That's not really my problem, is it. If you can't field a candidate that isn't corrupt, then you lose - why are all your candidates so corrupt? Instead you side with the devil, figuratively speaking, to get what you want. Shame on you.

                          I'm not saying the democrat side is roses - Clinton was awful. I still don't know which would have been worse. The issue seems to be more systemic with US society, and its extreme focus on money and status - very Christian things, right?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                            Sorry, he lies often, not always. I do not even think I need to come with examples? Or do you want examples of some of the more egregious ones? How many people were at his inauguration again, and why does it matter - ohh, because ego?
                            Does Trump lie and stretch the truth? Sure. Does he do it to a greater extent than the average person? I'm not convinced of that. But then I don't believe he's a cartoon villain who cackles with glee while unleashing his evil schemes on the world.

                            Originally posted by Zara View Post
                            That's not really my problem, is it. If you can't field a candidate that isn't corrupt, then you lose - why are all your candidates so corrupt? Instead you side with the devil, figuratively speaking, to get what you want. Shame on you.

                            I'm not saying the democrat side is roses - Clinton was awful. I still don't know which would have been worse. The issue seems to be more systemic with US society, and its extreme focus on money and status - very Christian things, right?
                            Your conclusion seems to be that Christians should simply abstain from voting. But you know the saying, that the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Does Trump lie and stretch the truth? Sure. Does he do it to a greater extent than the average person? I'm not convinced of that. But then I don't believe he's a cartoon villain who cackles with glee while unleashing his evil schemes on the world.
                              Yes, he does it to a greater extent to an average person - more than 10,000 untruths since coming into office according to some reports. It also matters more when he does it, he is the moral and political head of the US; it is starting to normalise just lying to get your way. He shouts "fake news", constantly, while fact checkers show time and time again, that he is lying about facts. Facts are not opinions. I am fine with the President in some instances needing to hide the truth, for dirty hands reasons, but to see it happen consistently is undermining of sanctity of the institution.


                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Your conclusion seems to be that Christians should simply abstain from voting. But you know the saying, that the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
                              Evil is succeeding - through Trump. Christian get a few policy concessions, while the poor become poorer; he continues to ignore scientific conclusions in favour of ideology; and stacks the government with corporate lackeys. Meanwhile you need to blind yourself to the things you actually don't support, because you have no other choice of candidate.

                              The US political system appears to be broken. There need to be more voting blocks, representing distinct political opinions, a two party system doesn't necessarily work for a democracy as complex as the US.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                                ...more than 10,000 untruths since coming into office according to some reports.
                                Yes, reports that consider exaggeration, approximation, differences of opinion, honest mistakes, hyperbole, figures of speech, sarcasm, obvious jokes, and so on to be "lies".

                                Originally posted by Zara View Post
                                Evil is succeeding - through Trump.
                                No it's not.

                                I was hoping a new user to the forum might bring a fresh perspective, but instead all you have to offer is the same, tired and irrational anti-Trump rhetoric that we've all heard a million times before.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X