WRL62

[Lead]

Remember, my original statement was that her track record for corruption was a mile long. Not just that she did it once. That's what sets her apart from other politicians who lie once or twice.

BTW this thread title is meant to be an insult/call-out of me. The rules seem to state that you can't do that.

So it isn't just
1. Power
2. Dishonesty
but also
3. Multiple times

Do we have the criteria with this?

 

[EGarrett]

@Lead is corrupt.

If moderators were lying about the board policies or banning people and claiming they didn't, yeah that would be message board corruption.

(If you want to ask me if Lead saying he had bacon for breakfast when he didn't is corruption, you could argue that but I'd consider that so minor that no one would care, lying about policies and positions etc is the case I'm making)

 

[waiguoren]

It won't move forward because Jack can't acknowledge that he didn't know that was a definition and that his attempted argument against it was flat-out wrong. He can't admit that his attempted argument against the definition (that everyone is corrupt according to it) was just wrong. It only applies to people in power, so no, not everyone is corrupt.

That's the point. He makes weak, false and bad arguments, they get disproven and he then runs away. You can't discuss with someone like that, and him going around acting like he's the one who makes good points is just dishonest and wrong. If he was honest or could just admit that he was wrong about the definition having no meaning, it could move forward easily.

I agree that he has issues admitting fault, but in this case I don't think it matters at all. You're using a rare definition in the first place.

 

[EGarrett]

So it isn't just
1. Power
2. Dishonesty
but also
3. Multiple times

Do we have the criteria with this?

For what I said, yup.

 

[EGarrett]

I agree that he has issues admitting fault, but in this case I don't think it matters at all. You're using a rare definition in the first place.

It matters because he asked me to make the case for her corruption.

 

[Lead]

For what I said, yup.

Okay good.

One side note, why is the third criteria involved when it isn't included in the definition we are using? Is it to apply different degrees or significance in what corruption is?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I agree that he has issues admitting fault, but in this case I don't think it matters at all. You're using a rare definition in the first place.

Agreed. If this is a stepping stone for some further argument it might mean something. Otherwise it seems pretty routine.

It's more of concern to me whether Hillary was more this way than other candidates to a significant degree that it should affect her standing, especially among other factors.

But I don't think that's the conversation that's happening.

 

[EGarrett]

Okay good.

One side note, why is the third criteria involved when it isn't included in the definition we are using? Is it to apply different degrees or significance in what corruption is?

Because he wanted me to make the case for what I said. There are definitely different degrees to it. If Ronald Reagan said he had bacon for breakfast when he didn't, that would be dishonesty, you could argue that that was corruption by this definition but that would be so minor as to be silly and I would never bring that up. That's why I pointed out that she had a long track record and that it was exceptional.

(In her Wall Street speech she said that she has a "public position" and a "private position" which also blatant)

 

[Limbo Pete]

Man this is retarded lmao

 

[Sketch]

Man this is retarded lmao

How long does this normally last with him? Will he be here for days, weeks?

 

[EGarrett]

Agreed. If this is a stepping stone for some further argument it might mean something. Otherwise it seems pretty routine.

It's more of concern to me whether Hillary was more this way than other candidates to a significant degree that it should affect her standing, especially among other factors.

But I don't think that's the conversation that's happening.

Check out her Wall Street speeches, she said she had both a public position and a private position on things, among other stuff. She also talked about fixing elections in the Middle East (I don't have the audio googled at the moment to know which country) ... just a smorgasbord.

 

[Limbo Pete]

How long does this normally last with him? Will he be here for days, weeks?

It depends. I think Lead coming in like a bomb diffusing robot took some of the edge off. But typically just a few days at most, I reckon. Been a while though.
He very obviously doesn't hold up well under any kind of pressure.

 

[EGarrett]

How long does this normally last with him? Will he be here for days, weeks?

How long will you be here? I'm actually having a conversation with some people, you're just following me and adding nothing.

 

[Lead]

Because he wanted me to make the case for what I said. There are definitely different degrees to it. If Ronald Reagan said he had bacon for breakfast when he didn't, that would be dishonesty, you could argue that that was corruption by this definition but that would be so minor as to be silly and I would never bring that up. That's why I pointed out that she had a long track record and that it was exceptional.

(In her Wall Street speech she said that she has a "public position" and a "private position" which also blatant)

Okay. We have the piece that helps move this along. The next piece would be to loop Jack back in here because the second part of the short conversation was him saying that definition is too broad, it can be applied to everyone or many politicians. If he were to provide some examples of politicians showing corruption by your definition, you both may agree and still disagree on whether to use a tighter or broader definition but you'd at least see why he wouldn't use yours over his own. Do you think that could work?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Check out her Wall Street speeches, she said she had both a public position and a private position on things, among other stuff. She also talked about fixing elections in the Middle East (I don't have the audio googled at the moment to know which country) ... just a smorgasbord.

To be honest I don't have a sufficiently coherent position on how exactly a politician should act to comment much, but my impression of the public/private statement is that it's remarkably honest. Wouldn't it be more unusual if a politician really believed in every policy they publicly supported, or always and only supported policies for reasons of deep agreement? It's more surprising to me that should would say that out loud, which strikes me as tactically unwise.

I'm sure she said many other disagreeable things in less-than-charismatic ways, though Jack would likely disagree. I'm not sure all of those even considered together earn her the corrupt label in the way post people would construe it, or made her a worse candidate than Trump.

(To be fair I'm sure you're not assessing her candidacy based solely on this charge.)

 

[EGarrett]

Okay. We have the piece that helps move this along. The next piece would be to loop Jack back in here because the second part of the short conversation was him saying that definition is too broad, it can be applied to everyone or many politicians. If he were to provide some examples of politicians showing corruption by your definition, you both may agree and still disagree on whether to use a tighter or broader definition but you'd at least see why he wouldn't use yours over his own. Do you think that could work?

Jack can't participate because he is of the position that the definition doesn't work because it can be applied to everyone even though it actually only applies to people in power. Jack is also completely wrong about that.

BTW I'm going to send you a PM.

 

[Fawlty]

It quotes the drivel in the forum. It does this whenever it's told.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

This thread needs a do-over.

 

[Lead]

Jack can't participate because he is of the position that the definition doesn't work because it can be applied to everyone even though it actually only applies to people in power. Jack is also completely wrong about that.

BTW I'm going to send you a PM.

But Jack could operate under your definition and criteria to point out his premise which was it can be applied to too many people for it to mean anything. He could still operate under those perimeters without having to accept your definition as his own.

 

[Limbo Pete]

EGarrett strikes me as the sort of person that won't stop talking to the bus driver.