WSJ: Campaign-finance experts said Trump's lawyers payment to porn star likely violated the law

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ad hominem, thus irrelevant --> The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.

By the way....

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.

I know. I just thought it was funny.

 

[Ted Frazier]

The left is so upset with men getting *****. Meanwhile democrats have systematically attacked our democracy at multiple levels...and that apparently doesn't violate any election laws.

The article says the that you say regarding violation the law.

 

[Ted Frazier]

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.



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.

You also learned from experts that a law was broken.

 

[The Breeze]

A few hours ago, Trump’s lawyer admitted having paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels.
Looks like Trump's got 99 problems and a ***** is one.

Campaign-finance experts said Michael Cohen’s payment, even if he footed the bill, likely violated election rules

Trump Lawyer Says He Personally Paid Stormy Daniels

Keep swinging Ted you'll get him sooner or later, lol.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Typical USMB thread, it is shown that Trump’s lawyer lied and all the Trump zealots want to talk about is the people who filed a election complaint.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[usmbguest5318]

Click the link. Read the content you find there.

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.

If you understand logic, you would know that EVERY argument is fallacy. Identifying the fallacy does not discredit the argument, rather it points out the potential flaws and opportunities to court-attack the argument.

Dude, I don't need to read your link. I know what the Ad Hominem fallacy is.

Do you know what tragic hubris is? I sure hope so because it, not a complete understanding of ad hominem fallacious reasoning, is what you possess.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you know what tragic hubris is? I sure hope so because it, not a complete understanding of ad hominem fallacious reasoning, is what you possess.

You obviously think it means something different.

Again, my identifying a bias is just as relevant as you identifying that said bias does not necessarily mean the speaker is wrong.

EVERY COCKSUCKING ARGUMENT is fallacious. Otherwise, we wouldn't call them arguments. We would call them facts.

Identifying fallacy only helps to identify and exploit counter-arguments. Identifying the fallacy itself is not an argument.

That's like a doctor diagnosing a disease and calling it done, or a mechanic identifying the problem with your car and not doing any repairs. The diagnosis is not treatment and cure.

It makes me laugh when pseudo-intellectuals get on here and talk about fallacies as if they know what to do with them.

Let me help you:

Common Cause may be biased because of their obvious communist leanings, but they are credible despite those tendencies because___________.


Now, why don't you identify the fallacy you employed by only identifying the fallacy.

 

[del]

trump violated the law you say?

stop the ******* presses

 

[Valerie]

lock him up!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you know what tragic hubris is? I sure hope so because it, not a complete understanding of ad hominem fallacious reasoning, is what you possess.

You obviously think it means something different.

Again, my identifying a bias is just as relevant as you identifying that said bias does not necessarily mean the speaker is wrong.

EVERY COCKSUCKING ARGUMENT is fallacious. Otherwise, we wouldn't call them arguments. We would call them facts.

Identifying fallacy only helps to identify and exploit counter-arguments. Identifying the fallacy itself is not an argument.

That's like a doctor diagnosing a disease and calling it done, or a mechanic identifying the problem with your car and not doing any repairs. The diagnosis is not treatment and cure.

It makes me laugh when pseudo-intellectuals get on here and talk about fallacies as if they know what to do with them.

Let me help you:

Common Cause may be biased because of their obvious communist leanings, but they are credible despite those tendencies because___________.


Now, why don't you identify the fallacy you employed by only identifying the fallacy.

why don't you identify the fallacy you employed by only identifying the fallacy.

I didn't "only identify the fallacy." I identified the specific reason your argument lacks merit as a basis for thinking be diminished and thereby refuting the legitimacy of the claim that the transaction in question violated any laws.

the "watch dog" group Common Cause filed a lawsuit alleging this transaction was a violation of election laws....Common Cause was founded by a guy who looks like a commie....Common Cause is run by a goose-stepping Bolshevik whose opinion pieces demonstrate an unquestionable one-sided leftist commie slant.

The merit of the claim has nothing to do with who filed it.

As I noted earlier, were you to have read the content at the link I provided, you'd have seen why that is so. Quite simply, the fact that Party A is biased against Party B has no bearing on whether Party A's claim that Party B violated a law is valid and truthful. Only the fact pattern of Party B's acts (and, if mens rea applies, intentions) provide merit to such a charge.

Common Cause may be biased because of their obvious communist leanings, but they are credible despite those tendencies because___________.

The issue at hand isn't whether Common Cause is credible, but rather whether their claim that the transactions in question were or were not lawful. Legal charges aren't decided on the credibility of the person or group levying the charge, but rather on the rigor and veracity of the evidence presented in support of the charge.