What's the underlying source of all this fear and paranoia? — Posty McPostface
You're lost brother. Go pick on someone smaller. I'll kick your ass. That's my MO. As I've already said, your posts are an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild. — creativesoul
Nope. I'm barely breaching the idea. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension? — creativesoul
That is how thuggery works. Family members are threatened and incomes are threatened.Müller's investigation has so far resulted in 22 plea deals and indictments. Hardly a farce. — Benkei
Right. So suspicious behaviour should be ignored because we cannot link a specific crime with it? I really hope you never get into law enforcement with that idea of what investigations are supposed to accomplish. — Benkei
No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud. — creativesoul
I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people. — creativesoul
My knowledge on history isn't so good but I doubt that early scientists were ''pretending'' to believe in God — TheMadFool
If I may say so, their works were considered as deciphering the word of God. — TheMadFool
You do not even know there is such a law and then you argue for a government agency to legally pursue something you acknowledge you do not even know whether it is something they can legally pursue.I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people. — creativesoul
You're missing something very very important to consider. Voters do not write the laws which govern political behaviour. Voters could change the entire landscape and end up with the same problem if the laws are not changed accordingly. — creativesoul
There are no laws that I'm aware of that are enforced when a candidate lies to the American people. There are laws that are enforced when banks lie, when retailers lie, when manufacturer lie, when drug companies lie, when investment firms lie, etc. In short, there are all sorts of laws regarding committing fraud against people. There used to be more. There are no such laws concerning a lying candidate.
There ought be — creativesoul
The thread is not about how laws apply to extra-marital affairs - in general. It is not about a consensual sexual relationship involving Trump. It is about the effects/affects of language use - in general - with particular attention being paid to cases where candidates deliberately and knowingly misrepresent their own thought and belief as a means to lead the public to believe things about them that are not true. That is committing fraud against the American people. The people are buying into false pretense. The extra-marital affair part was invoked by you. While it is covered by what I've been discussing, it's not the only thing that is. — creativesoul
This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws. — creativesoul
When placed with my immediately prior response this appears therefore to suggest every candidate and holder of any political office has committed fraud and is committing fraud.Say a candidate says 'X', but does not believe that 'X' is true. Further suppose that 'X' is something that a very large swathe of the population holds as of the utmost importance regarding which candidate will get their vote. The candidate is quite aware of all this, and in fact, s/he has asserted 'X' for no other reason than to acquire the votes of the people in question here(of those particular voters).
I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people — creativesoul
For example, many folk hold moral values, such as abortion and other civil rights of the utmost importance. If a candidate for office holds contradictory values to a voter, then that voter has every right to know about that, for those are the kinds of things that many people use to decide how to vote. — creativesoul
On a personal level, one could argue that it's none of anyone's business if someone running for office has had multiple extra-marital affairs replete with non-disclosure agreements as a means to keep them secret. On another level, one could argue that it is most certainly the business of the American people to know about the people running for office. How else does the public form their opinion about them? — creativesoul
If all you meant was "equal under the law" then we've no disagreement. Keep in mind here that not all law applies to all people. Some laws apply to the financial district. Others apply to business owner responsibility. Others still apply to elected officials. — creativesoul