Sure, but the law always needs to be interpreted in application. The spirit of the law isn't to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals, but rather to prevent a foreign national influencing or controlling a candidate. I do believe you perceive this.
— Agustino
It doesn't intend to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals. It intends to prevent receiving money or other things of value from foreign nationals. A no strings attached donation is illegal.
↪Thanatos Sand OK? I'm arguing that there's a case for Trump Jr. having committed a crime in meeting with the Russian lawyer. I'm not claiming that nobody else has ever committed a crime. So I don't see the relevance of your whataboutism.
Besides, some of your examples seem completely wrong anyway. The law I'm referring to is in relation to elections.
Yes, but why is it illegal? — Agustino
Because we all know that there is no such thing as a "no strings attached" donation.
Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a banal platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you did to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt. — Thanatos Sand
They can seem wrong to you all you like, but that doesn't make them wrong, you haven't shown them to be wrong, and they're not wrong. And some of my examples involved elections, and the others were relevant to the topic of collusion.
Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a banal platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you did to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.
— Thanatos Sand
I don't care if Clinton or anyone else also committed a crime. I'm arguing that there's a case that Trump Jr. did.
If only some of them involved elections then some of them didn't, proving my point that some of your examples are wrong as they have nothing to do with the law I'm talking about.
And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant. — Thanatos Sand
You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion.
And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant.
— Thanatos Sand
Relevant to my argument with Agustino over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime? No, they're not relevant. So if you want to bring up Clinton's crimes, it makes no sense to do so in response to me.
"You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion."
You brought up non-election issues in response to my claims regarding an election law. So, yes, they're irrelevant.
They absolutely are relevant and I've shown how. Again, you just say they're not without showing how. — Thanatos Sand
Why? Maybe they just hated Clinton, without wanting to control Trump? — Agustino
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
What does the term "truth" refer to here? — creativesoul
No. But they didn't make a donation. — Agustino
If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues. — Thanatos Sand
Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election.
If I'm arguing that John murdered someone and Agustino is arguing that he didn't, and you respond by saying that Jane murdered someone, then your response is irrelevant to my discussion with Agustino.
If you can't see how Clinton's crimes have no bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then you have serious reasoning issues.
Yes, you can.compromising material on an enemy without them being indebted to me? — Michael
So what? That's the letter of the law, but when you apply the law you have to take into account the spirit of the law as well. If the law says that if you hit someone's car from behind it is your fault, but in this particular case the person reverses his car to hit you, should it still be your fault? :sBut it's quite simple, Agustino. The law doesn't say that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals except in cases where there's no indebtedness. It just says that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals. — Michael
If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues.
— Thanatos Sand
You're absurd, and your attempts to save face are comical. You were in the wrong. Accept it and move on.
Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election.
Whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime in meeting with that lawyer doesn't depend on whether or not Hillary committed a similar or different crime. This is a ridiculous claim.
I never said it did, so you now are more absurd and have even more face to save. — Thanatos Sand
I never said it did, so you now are more absurd and have even more face to save.
— Thanatos Sand
If you're not claiming that Hillary's crimes determine whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then your accusations against Hillary are irrelevant to my argument with Agustini over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime.
Really Michael, this Phariseeism of yours is amazing. What kind of BS is this literalist interpretation of the law? By this interpretation most people should be in prison. — Agustino
Man, your reading and reasoning skills are really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that. — Thanatos Sand
Man, your reading and reasoning skills are really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that.
— Thanatos Sand
What you actually said was "And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.".
So you think it relevant because... people are hypocrites?
And you also said "it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above". But I fail to see how Clinton's crimes contradict my claims regarding Trump Jr. having committed a crime.
I never said anything about contradiction, so your poor reading on this thread shows again. — Thanatos Sand
I've told you many times in previous posts why it's relevant.
You think so? I think one can do evil without awareness, but would that cease to be evil just because they don't perceive it as evil? What if someone has good intentions, but through their actions and ignorance actually cause a lot of evil? Are they not responsible? :s — Agustino
Right. Well to me innocence represents that state in which one is not capable to do evil. Adam and Eve were innocent before the Fall, they were not capable of evil before eating of the Tree. That's why the Serpent had to deceive them, and pressure them to eat of the Tree, they wouldn't think of doing that themselves. — Agustino
I would agree with this, except that I don't think we, as sinful human beings, are fully capable of innocence in this life. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.