4 ms·

I understand that lawyers are taught to think logically and to support their arguments, so I would appreciate your analysis on our exchange, which looks to me l

I understand that lawyers are taught to think logically and to support their arguments, so I would appreciate your analysis on our exchange, which looks to me like this: MY COMMENT: question / observation / speculation / hypothesis-with-circumstantial-evidence-to-support-speculation / expectation / expectation YOUR REPLY: assertion / speculation question / speculation / assertion personal observation question / self-evident-assertion / assertion / assertion The main complaint to my comment was about unsupported speculation, which I don't see, instead I do see it in the reply. I genuinely want to do better if I should.

vertig0h 7y ago
>"Especially considering all the other political reprisals and pardons that are in the news" What news are you talking about? Whatever news you're watching is only giving you one perspective on events, so this "observation" is not helpful on its own. The rest of your comment is similarly rooted in assumptions and speculation borne out of a hostile media's interpretation of recent events, so the conclusions you're reaching are built on a far less sturdy foundation of "evidence" than you may think.
- jedberg 7y ago
  The media is supposed to be hostile. They are always hostile to the administration. It is their job as one of the checks on power enshrined in the constitution. Why do you think freedom of the press is in Amendment one?
  - FlowNote 7y ago
    Is that why Obama went 8 years without ending a single war?
  - vertig0h 7y ago
    That's not always the case. The mainstream media - both the news media and entertainment media more broadly - was extremely accommodative and deferential to the Obama administration largely because he was on the mainstream media's political "side". Given this, many actions taken by the Obama administration that would have dominated the news cycle as impeachment-worthy if taken by the Trump administration were simply ignored or brushed aside by the Obama administration's media allies.
    - MadWombat 7y ago
      > The mainstream media - both the news media and entertainment media more broadly - was extremely accommodative and deferential to the Obama administration You don't watch FOX News much, I assume
    - jedberg 7y ago
      You mean like the impeachment worthy scandal that Fox News was all over during Obama’s two terms? The one where he wore a tan suit. Or the one where he asked for fancy mustard? They were so hostile to him they had to find minor offenses to scream about. And even his “friendly” press threw him under the bus for drone strikes and border detentions.
parhamn 7y ago
Funny that you broke it down like that. I think since forums like this aren't for formal arguments, it's fair for the questions to be seen as more than suggestive, especially with your phrasing.
complianceowl 7y ago
"I genuinely want to do better if I should." I would have to respectfully call you out on that. You're main interest appears more to show how right you, or at least more right. Also, your breakdown of the encounter is dishonest. You literally said "Surely" it was about political coercion. And you didn't even attempt to mildly address the allegations brought by the government against Facebook. Next time, you might want to use the world "might" or "potentially". "Amongst all US companies that offshore profits, including the likes of Halliburton, Facebook has been singled out because the US administration wants the company to do it's bidding regarding policy and algorithms for political advertising" So because other companies do it, it's okay for Facebook to do it -- that's your rationale? Not good, and all I see is a lazy attempt at utilizing "circumstantial evidence" that can't withstand the test of scrutiny. When cracking down on something, the government will almost always start with the big names in the industry to send a message. Why did you overlook that possibility, or why is that possibility less feasible? These are important questions that should've been asked and addressed. Furthermore, the President has granted somewhere around 25 pardons; about two of those were actually controversial. The rest barely made headlines, and most haven't. You referenced this as part of your circumstantial evidence. Once again, this absolutely doesn't pass the test of scrutiny. I didn't write your comment -- you did. Which is why I called you out on throwing claims out there, without even the slightest reference to any reasonable evidence. Throwing out overly-confident words and sloppily referencing acquittals, political reprisals, and talking about what you expect to happen is a good representation of an unfounded comment. Airbus just received the largest-in-history FCPA fine by the DoJ, totaling 3.9 billion. Is the President trying to bring them down as well? Maybe to help out Boeing? If I were to say, "Surely this is about helping Boeing", I would need much more than a couple of references to current events. Lastly, I'm not a lawyer. Good day.

vertig0h 7y ago

>"Especially considering all the other political reprisals and pardons that are in the news" What news are you talking about? Whatever news you're watching is only giving you one perspective on events, so this "observation" is not helpful on its own. The rest of your comment is similarly rooted in assumptions and speculation borne out of a hostile media's interpretation of recent events, so the conclusions you're reaching are built on a far less sturdy foundation of "evidence" than you may think.

jedberg 7y ago
The media is supposed to be hostile. They are always hostile to the administration. It is their job as one of the checks on power enshrined in the constitution. Why do you think freedom of the press is in Amendment one?
- FlowNote 7y ago
  Is that why Obama went 8 years without ending a single war?
- vertig0h 7y ago
  That's not always the case. The mainstream media - both the news media and entertainment media more broadly - was extremely accommodative and deferential to the Obama administration largely because he was on the mainstream media's political "side". Given this, many actions taken by the Obama administration that would have dominated the news cycle as impeachment-worthy if taken by the Trump administration were simply ignored or brushed aside by the Obama administration's media allies.
  - MadWombat 7y ago
    > The mainstream media - both the news media and entertainment media more broadly - was extremely accommodative and deferential to the Obama administration You don't watch FOX News much, I assume
  - jedberg 7y ago
    You mean like the impeachment worthy scandal that Fox News was all over during Obama’s two terms? The one where he wore a tan suit. Or the one where he asked for fancy mustard? They were so hostile to him they had to find minor offenses to scream about. And even his “friendly” press threw him under the bus for drone strikes and border detentions.

parhamn 7y ago

Funny that you broke it down like that. I think since forums like this aren't for formal arguments, it's fair for the questions to be seen as more than suggestive, especially with your phrasing.

complianceowl 7y ago

"I genuinely want to do better if I should." I would have to respectfully call you out on that. You're main interest appears more to show how right you, or at least more right. Also, your breakdown of the encounter is dishonest. You literally said "Surely" it was about political coercion. And you didn't even attempt to mildly address the allegations brought by the government against Facebook. Next time, you might want to use the world "might" or "potentially". "Amongst all US companies that offshore profits, including the likes of Halliburton, Facebook has been singled out because the US administration wants the company to do it's bidding regarding policy and algorithms for political advertising" So because other companies do it, it's okay for Facebook to do it -- that's your rationale? Not good, and all I see is a lazy attempt at utilizing "circumstantial evidence" that can't withstand the test of scrutiny. When cracking down on something, the government will almost always start with the big names in the industry to send a message. Why did you overlook that possibility, or why is that possibility less feasible? These are important questions that should've been asked and addressed. Furthermore, the President has granted somewhere around 25 pardons; about two of those were actually controversial. The rest barely made headlines, and most haven't. You referenced this as part of your circumstantial evidence. Once again, this absolutely doesn't pass the test of scrutiny. I didn't write your comment -- you did. Which is why I called you out on throwing claims out there, without even the slightest reference to any reasonable evidence. Throwing out overly-confident words and sloppily referencing acquittals, political reprisals, and talking about what you expect to happen is a good representation of an unfounded comment. Airbus just received the largest-in-history FCPA fine by the DoJ, totaling 3.9 billion. Is the President trying to bring them down as well? Maybe to help out Boeing? If I were to say, "Surely this is about helping Boeing", I would need much more than a couple of references to current events. Lastly, I'm not a lawyer. Good day.