- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Air Force: Nothing improper with Airmen's Pro-Trump merchandise at Ramstein
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:06 pm to DallasTiger11
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:06 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:Because that is how one conducts a hypothetical analysis.quote:Yes but why would I be concerned about this? It didn’t happen.
Assume with me that Trump HAD used this trip as the excuse to officially announce his 2020 campaign; that he handed our troops and airmen “Trump 2020” bumper stickers, buttons and caps; and that his speech urged them to vote for him in 2020 ... all on the government dime. For that matter, imagine that Obama had done the same thing in 2012.
Would that cause you concern?
We look first at a scenario that one would HOPE everyone agrees to be problematic. See above.
Then we change a fact and see whether it is still problematic. Until we are dealing with hypothetical facts parallel to the actual facts.
If Trump HAD been handing-out MAGA hats, I would see that as campaign activity on the government dime, and I would see it as problematic from ANY officeholder. Clearly, the bulk of this board sees the matter differently, no doubt because it was Trump.
Had it been HRC or Obama or Pelosi or Shumer ..., the entire forum would be up in arms.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 9:12 pm
2
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:08 pm to AggieHank86
How do you propose someone refutes a hypothetical analysis?
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I doubt it would be difficult to show that he was chasing votes when handing-out campaign materials.
I believe it could not be proven that he was.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:12 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Well, I DID believe that you went to law school, until you asked this ridiculous question.
How do you propose someone refutes a hypothetical analysis?
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:13 pm to IslandBuckeye
quote:I expected nothing else.quote:I believe it could not be proven that he was.
I doubt it would be difficult to show that he was chasing votes when handing-out campaign materials.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:16 pm to AggieHank86
If.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:18 pm to BBONDS25
quote:In my view (and using legal terminology), I see "suspect" as less than a preponderance of the evidence, and I see "believe" as more than a preponderance but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Believe: accept something as true
Suspect: have an idea of the truth of something without proof.
What a cavernous difference. I apologize for mischaracterizing you posts.
Doubtless you see the matter differently, or will pretend to do so in order to be cantankerous and contrary.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:22 pm to Jbird
quote:Yes.
If.
When we do not yet know all the facts, sometimes we discuss alternate scenarios based upon different possible sets of facts.
"If"
The lack of intellectual curiosity on this forum is sometimes mind boggling.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Well, I DID believe that you went to law school, until you asked this ridiculous question.
You ask witnesses to prove negatives a lot in court? Family court must be very different than all other types of court.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:25 pm to BBONDS25
quote:No, but I ask plenty of hypothetical questions in depositions.
You ask witnesses to prove negatives a lot in court?
Something need not be admissible to be potentially useful.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In my view (and using legal terminology), I see "suspect" as less than a preponderance of the evidence, and I see "believe" as more than a preponderance but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Well making your own definitions is fun. I thought you said
quote:so I figured you were using common English definitions. I didn’t know you were using your own made up definitions. The difference in proponderance of evidence is .0000000001. So I’m not sure your made up “legal” definition helps much.
For those who are less than fluent in English, "believe" and "suspect" are very different things.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No, but I ask plenty of hypothetical questions in depositions. Something need not be admissible to be potentially useful.
Fantastic. I ask again: how do you suppose the posters of this board disprove a hypothetical analysis? And in which law school course would I have learned that??
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:28 pm to AggieHank86
The shifting of scenarios is entertaining. From nobody knew all the way to boxes of hats were smuggled into Germany.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:29 pm to BBONDS25
I am unaware of any chart in Websters, weighing and ranking the thousand different levels of "certainty" in the infinitely-subtle English language.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I am unaware of any chart in Websters, weighing and ranking the thousand different levels of "certainty" in the infinitely-subtle English language.
Your ignorance of the definitions doesn’t change them. The definitions I posted were from Webster’s.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:32 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Well, CBA didn't get his panties in a bunch. Instead, he simply explained that this visit was not nearly as "black" as the original poster's story led me to believe. It resolved the matter to my satisfaction. But for some reason a half dozen posters have insisted upon continuing to attack me for several pages.
I ask again: how do you suppose the posters of this board disprove a hypothetical analysis? And in which law school course would I have learned that??
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Well, CBA didn't get his panties in a bunch. Instead, he simply explained that this visit was not nearly as "black" as the original poster's story led me to believe. It resolved the matter to my satisfaction. But for some reason a half dozen posters have insisted upon continuing to attack me for several pages.
Relevance to your request that posters disprove your hypothetical?
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:33 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Yes. And one definition implied a higher level of certainty than the other. Just as I explained.
What I posted was from Webster’s.
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Yes. And one definition implied a higher level of certainty than the other. Just as I explained.
Yes...and the difference was cavernous, as I apologized for. Why does that matter, though? I thought we were going by your proponderance definition.
This post was edited on 12/28/18 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 12/28/18 at 9:34 pm to BBONDS25
Isn't the shifting of Hank's sand fun?
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News