Stipulating that Trump is a lizard person, I can’t tell you how corrupt he is until you tell me the priorities of the Sirius B lizard people who sent him to our planet.
C’mon. Hypotheticals are totally something we can address. If you don’t think they’re worth addressing, fine, but I don’t see the reason to fingerwag at people who are willing to, and I use this word carefully, entertain them.
Incorrect; if Trump is a lizard person from Sirius B, that means he is not eligible to be US president, because he isn’t a natural born citizen. In fact, as a non human, he can’t even become a naturalized citizen; but regardless, he is intelligible for the office of president. Worse, he knowingly and hypocritically accused Obama of not being a US Citizen.
Lying about your eligibility to be president sounds like a form of corruption to me. So does accusing others of things you are guilty of in order to harm their political career while boosting yours.
Plus, Trump’s campaign didn’t disclose the aliens of Sirius B as a donor.
Again, just because we CAN entertain a hypothetical doesn’t mean it is worth doing.
OMG! I can’t believe that you would stipulate that Trump is a lizard person.
PS: I (obviously) get it, but I don’t think the word “stipulate” causes less of a problem. I think it means to agree. But, as I said, I understand that you are saying it as a substitute for “assuming for the sake of argument.”
prep. Latin meaning “for the sake of argument,” used by lawyers in the context of “assuming arguendo” that the facts were as the other party contends, but the law prevents the other side from prevailing. Example: “assuming arguendo” that the court finds our client, the defendant, was negligent, the other party (plaintiff) was so contributorily negligent he cannot recover damages. In short, the lawyer is not admitting anything, but wants to make a legal argument only. The word appears most commonly in appeals briefs.
…
I’ve been using that word wrong for like a quarter century now. I coulda sworn I read in some philosophy book as a teenager that it meant “agree for the sake of moving forward, without really agreeing in substance,” but that’s apparently not at all what it means. How embarrassing.
These “Biden allegations” are a Trump intimidation tactic. I’ve read the e-mails and not only do I not see anything that implicates Joe Biden, I don’t see much else wrong, either.
In business there is a lot of stuff that is embarrassing without being illegal, immoral or wrong. People go into business to make money. They make profits off clients and split that money. They pay finder’s fees to people that bring them business. They have disagreements over money, some of them serious.
Now, everybody knows that everyone does this - but you still don’t want your clients to know the details.The same thing goes for some discussion on branding and image and such.
By obtaining and releasing the private business correspondence of a relative of Biden that will not have a role in the administration, he’s sending a message to anyone else that dares opposes him - he’ll do his best to destroy your entire family and their livelihood.
It’s not coincidence that that bullshit originated in Ukraine, Trump has always been hooked up there…look at Manafort, who was involved in a political campaign where they actually drummed up charges against and arrested the opposing candidate.
That’s why I’m not paying attention to this and why I think decent people shouldn’t.