Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Campaign-finance experts said Michael Cohen’s payment, even if he footed the bill, likely violated election rules
While the WSJ got the "scoop," other outlets have picked up the story. LMGTFYBehind a pay wall. What a shitty thread.
I would like to know what law Trump violated.
The person in trouble would be Michael Cohen, not Trump, no?
That's not my job. The OP should do it. It's his thread.While the WSJ got the "scoop," other outlets have picked up the story. LMGTFY
While the WSJ got the "scoop," other outlets have picked up the story. LMGTFYBehind a pay wall. What a shitty thread.
I would like to know what law Trump violated.
The person in trouble would be Michael Cohen, not Trump, no?
Well, if the OP-er doesn't and you want to learn what be the line of reasoning is,, and perhaps discuss as much, it becomes your "job" if you indeed want to know what the finance expert said.That's not my job. The OP should do it. It's his thread.While the WSJ got the "scoop," other outlets have picked up the story. LMGTFY
I would like to know what law Trump violated.
Founded by Lyndon Johnson's Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary, John W. Gardner.On Tuesday, Cohen acknowledged the payment and refuted a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause alleging it broke election laws.
Or....the OP can fuck off and quit starting threads without information?It becomes your job to at least try because the OP didn't post a link to a non-pay-wall-protected site. It'd be different were you to have tried and could not find any other publication disclosing the information, but insofar as there are several readily and easily accessible ones that have, that the OP-er didn't instead reference one of them isn't a big deal.
Do I agree that strictly speaking the OP would have been better were the OP-er to have provided a link to at least one alternative source? Yes, I do. That said, in this particular instance, I don't see any point in griping about the fact that s/he didn't because the information is available for free elsewhere.
You're not mad because of paywalls. You're mad because Stormy was vindicated.Well, if the OP-er doesn't and you want to learn what be the line of reasoning is,, and perhaps discuss as much, it becomes your "job" if you indeed want to know what the finance expert said.That's not my job. The OP should do it. It's his thread.While the WSJ got the "scoop," other outlets have picked up the story. LMGTFY
It becomes your job to at least try because the OP didn't post a link to a non-pay-wall-protected site. It'd be different were you to have tried and could not find any other publication disclosing the information, but insofar as there are several readily and easily accessible ones that have, that the OP-er didn't instead reference one of them isn't a big deal.I would like to know what law Trump violated.
Do I agree that strictly speaking the OP would have been better were the OP-er to have provided a link to at least one alternative source? Yes, I do. That said, in this particular instance, I don't see any point in griping about the fact that s/he didn't because the information is available for free elsewhere.
I honestly don't give a shit.You're not mad because of paywalls. You're mad because Stormy was vindicated.
Though this thread's OP isn't the most comprehensive or inspired one that might be composed, the OP-er did post information from the referenced article. You just don't have access to the whole of it, and apparently you're too lazy to avail yourself of alternative venues from which you might obtain more info on the matter. Does even the most easily obtained information need be by other "laid in your lap?" The OP-er isn't, after all, holding him-/herself out as a journalist.Or....the OP can fuck off and quit starting threads without information?It becomes your job to at least try because the OP didn't post a link to a non-pay-wall-protected site. It'd be different were you to have tried and could not find any other publication disclosing the information, but insofar as there are several readily and easily accessible ones that have, that the OP-er didn't instead reference one of them isn't a big deal.
Do I agree that strictly speaking the OP would have been better were the OP-er to have provided a link to at least one alternative source? Yes, I do. That said, in this particular instance, I don't see any point in griping about the fact that s/he didn't because the information is available for free elsewhere.
There's that option.
Fine. Whatever.Though this thread's OP isn't the most comprehensive or inspired one that might be composed, the OP-er did post information from the referenced article. You just don't have access to the whole of it, and apparently you're too lazy to avail yourself of alternative venues from which you might obtain more info on the matter. Does even the most easily obtained information need be by other "laid in your lap?" The OP-er isn't, after all, holding him-/herself out as a journalist.
Fine. Whatever.Though this thread's OP isn't the most comprehensive or inspired one that might be composed, the OP-er did post information from the referenced article. You just don't have access to the whole of it, and apparently you're too lazy to avail yourself of alternative venues from which you might obtain more info on the matter. Does even the most easily obtained information need be by other "laid in your lap?" The OP-er isn't, after all, holding him-/herself out as a journalist.
What I did learn (from other posters on this thread) is that the "watch dog" group Common Cause filed a lawsuit alleging this transaction was a violation of election laws.
I learned that Common Cause was founded by a guy who looks like a commie. I learned that Common Cause is run by a goose-stepping Bolshevik whose opinion pieces demonstrate an unquestionable one-sided leftist commie slant.
Ad hominem, thus irrelevant --> The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.I learned that Common Cause was founded by a guy who looks like a commie. I learned that Common Cause is run by a goose-stepping Bolshevik whose opinion pieces demonstrate an unquestionable one-sided leftist commie slant.
Ad Hominem is an irrelevant personal attack against the opponent. I am simply demonstrating clear, unequivocal bias, which is a proper inquiry under the circumstances. These "experts" have a clear agenda.The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.
Click the link. Read the content you find there.Ad Hominem is an irrelevant personal attack against the opponent. I am simply demonstrating clear, unequivocal bias, which is a proper inquiry under the circumstances. These "experts" have a clear agenda.The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.
Ad hominem, thus irrelevant --> The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.
By the way....Ad hominem, thus irrelevant --> The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.
???By the way....Ad hominem, thus irrelevant --> The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.
from your sig line....
"When pontificating and sharing your analysis, providing citations that point readers to your underlying research will help convince them that you have thought seriously about the matter under discussion. "
I couldn't resist.
Do I agree that strictly speaking the OP would have been better were the OP-er to have provided a link to at least one alternative source? Yes, I do.
Dude, I don't need to read your link. I know what the Ad Hominem fallacy is. Pointing out bias, while technically an attack on the person, is entirely relevant, especially in a discussion on politics. It is evidence that the person has motive to be dishonest. Credibility is always at issue.Click the link. Read the content you find there.
