If you choose to continue he will say you are gaslighting him and if you are lucky he will call you a racist. Kind of how all chats go with the resident Cliff Clavin, so a bit odd that it happens over and over with the same non-result .

Just to clarify, the particular argument I was weighing in on was your position that the pundit in the video you linked meant not knowing the law was an issue that would be problematic for the prosecution, rather than lack of knowledge that Trump was taking home classified documents. If the fact that the other pundits were talking about something that applies to either position proved something for you, that's great. They don't make your interpretation of that first pundit any more valid, of course, but I think the thread has moved on from that disagreement and so will I.

Meanwhile, I notice you still haven't answered the question that you said you would after I answered your question (which I did). But I won't waste our time calling you a liar or saying you acted in bad faith because, IDK, maybe you always intended to answer it and then...changed your mind? Because, reasons.

Yes i know that.

I posted so many examples of the 'knowing' and 'intent' being used in different ways and you picked thru them and found one that you think, if we solely focus on that one, you can elicit an admission from me that I agree with Rococo and/or think he is being reasonable. Do you not agree that several of the examples cite 'knowing' and 'intent' that fit MY POSITION, that if they got rid of or de-emphasized the 'knowing' and 'intent' and instead used a reverse onus (see my Board Directors examples) type law, then this issue of why Trump, Hilary and others are so hard to prosecute would largely disappear? (oh wait you won't answer that as you don't want to be seen agreeing with me.)

Thus my question or point to that you could use many of the others to ask him the same thing about me, but you don't. It is like you telling me 'i don't have to reply' to obvious trolling instead of telling the other they 'don't have to troll'.

Anyway I am mostly done with your very obvious and ALWAYS selective pulling of what to reply to and what to avoid. And by done I just mean you will only get the same courtesy from me. I will dismiss or not answer anything you ask or post I don't that i don't think suits me but will address stuff that does.

Give what you get as they say.

No, I know I'm not going to get any such admission. But you're so adamant that you are absolutely correct about your interpretation of what the pundit said, an interpretation that isn't impossible but seems fairly unlikely to me, that I was hoping to achieve the big stretch of you seeing that another interpretation was at least possible.

All I've been discussing this entire time is the issue of the classified documents going home. So a reverse onus would mean...that Trump would need to prove he didn't know the documents were classified, otherwise it should be assumed that he did? I'm not questioning the reasonableness or logic of such an idea; just clarifying that's what you're getting at.

**** man, why can't you just have a conversation without having to delve off into either summarizing people's positions (often poorly), or "predicting" what they will do?

Yeah, I gather that was where you were going with this, and it just doesn't make any sense to me here. I know that numerous times in the past I've come in to a debate you've been having to take issue with your posting style, without taking a position in the debate. I know it annoys you, and it doesn't usually get us anywhere, so I tend not to bother most of the time. But this is nothing like that. I've taken a very clear position here - I agree with Rococo's take on what the pundit had to say. I told you as much. So I don't know why I'd want to see if Rococo can see your point of view. I'm not trying to mediate anything. You're so adamant with your interpretation on this, that I wanted to know if you were even able to see another interpretation as being possible. Why this remains so hard to answer, I have no idea.

Yeah, sorry I don't choose to get involved with every aspect of debates you get into. If you think there's something in particular about your interpretation of that video that I'm not addressing, please let me know what it is.

OK then. And I will continue doing my best to answer questions that are asked of me.


Edit to add: This conversation has gotten so weird that I decided to go back and look at how we got here. Not sure if you ever do that, but if not, I'll just say it can be quite helpful at times. Anyway, I'm wondering if your irritation is because I'm only addressing one aspect of your bigger argument. If so, I'll just say that when I look back, you had only one substantial post (2714) about this recently (2717 was a short reply to Rococo; 2711/2 was where the conversation started but I don't believe was about intent, reverse onus, etc.), and then you used the video we're debating as an example, so I don't think it was unreasonable to focus in on that particular post. If that's the big issue here when you say things like "your very obvious and ALWAYS selective pulling of what to reply to and what to avoid", you could have simply said to me several posts ago that you're not as interested in debating the video (because it is a silly point for us to be stuck on) and were more interested in the larger point, and I could have chosen to engage on that or move on. But if that's not the issue, then I'm honestly not sure what's got you going in what I see as an odd direction here.

And if Bobo is really, really lucky he'll also get a Carlin Meme!

I haven't been following. Does that mean Bobo is already past the bad faith poster stage?

Quite so. That ship left the harbor months ago!

I am just going to stop there as it is just such a blatant lie with regards to my position and this dispute with Rococo.


The only reason this dispute crops up time and again is because Rococo says I am 'wrong' in my view.

I always say 'i respect his view and that he disagrees but I hold to my opinion and feel I have ample support for my view' and I then cite everything I think supports my view.

So while I think this is more a disagreement over semantics and opinion and interpretation and APPLICATION of the law, Rococo feels this is more black letter question where no such opinion, should apply.

That is our dispute and we simply will not agree.

The question at issue here is simple:

- My view is that 'Knowledge' and "intent' end up far too often being shield against prosecutions due to Prosecutors feeling that if they cannot establish the "knowledge' or 'intent' was present, a guilty verdict would be difficult to obtain and thus they do not try. I feel that could be easily fixed by the Reverse Onus, Board type Requirements', I have spoken about above'. I feel I have provided ample discussions by others (lawyers, Pundits) that supports my view and thus I will not simply accept Rococo telling me I am wrong, as I do not believe I am'.


I do not have to surrender my position just because Rococo or anyone disagrees. We can agree to disagree but as always in 2+2 that is not an option OTHERS ever accept.

i don't believe for one second you cannot read my position above and then look at all the outside lawyers and Pundits I have quoted saying something that aligns with my view and not think it is reasonable for me believe what i do based on what they are all saying. But at the same time I know you would never consider that side of the equation. You NEVER do.

Cuepee,

At this point, I don't think that you disagree with anything I wrote in post #2850.

My issue is that one excerpt is not the core of focus of what we disagree over and is more an example of trying to find something in the VOLUME or responses I post to 'win' on that ignores the actual topic in dispute.

this is the dispute we continually engage in when you replied to me with this...

and i replied with this...




Play that video above (it is time stamped) and what I did was state that same position (and found this speaker who echo'd my view after) that 'Trump KNOWING, you cannot do this...' is what would 'move the ball' and see him prosecuted. Ergo Trump not KNOWING (ignorance) is why the Prosecutor is not charging.

That is EXACTLY my position and complaint you claimed was wrong and why we were arguing.

And I stand by my view and have provided many more links showing many others saying 'Knowing', 'Intent', 'Lack of knowledge' are key to these Prosecutions.

And I will say it again in the future in another post, and I suspect you will tell me I am 'wrong' and question why I keep saying it, again instead of just saying you disagree which is why then we will fight across many pages because I don't believe I am wrong and I believe i have substantiated my position that many others hold my same view who have some gravitas to speak on this subject.

Do you disagree with what I wrote in post 2850? Do you think the talking head would disagree with what I wrote in post 2850?

Do you disagree that i quoted you above and myself and that is the argument we have engaged in more than once?

I have never argued with you about whether particular crimes had a mens rea of "knowingly", and I have never expressed a view on your "reverse onus" proposition. So I guess that I disagree with your characterization of our discussions.

Your turn. Post 2850.

Good luck with that your turn thing!

So Rococo, are you saying you have no view about his 'reverse onus' proposition borrowed from civil law for criminal law. Do you think it is 'reasonable fix' of his conspreeetarded concern that the elites escape prosecution.

Does the Fifth Amendment now somehow not apply to the Elites (however that is defined) when the Elites are now "required to put up a reasonable defense why in this instance they did not' [know] or they should be guilty." Surely, shifting the burden of proof from the govt to the accused is the only reasonable solution to this dilemma.

Sorry but I don't want to take how to fix it advice from a guy who doesn't even understand why laws have a "knowingly" requirement for specific types of crimes in the first place.

Nope. "But you're so adamant that you are absolutely correct about your interpretation of what the pundit said" is exactly how I saw your position. If I was incorrect about that, then fair enough. It really came across that way to me, and still does, but if you say that you're not adamant about it, then I'll take your word for it and assume that either you didn't express yourself clearly in that regard, or I misunderstood.

There are a few things here that I remember differently, but it's hardly worth me going through it all again, so I'll just move on.

I've never asked you to surrender your position.

Again, focusing on the specific point we were discussing, your interpretation of what the pundit said - as I posted, I believe it's "an interpretation that isn't impossible but seems fairly unlikely to me". Is it reasonable for you to believe it? I think it's a bit of a stretch, mainly because it would mean the pundit was making a different argument than what I believe the law says.

We've definitely crossed a threshold into some kind of bizarro world here. I've told you, more than once, what I think of your interpretation. Meanwhile, you refuse to answer a simple question about whether another interpretation is reasonable for someone to have made, after saying you would. And I'm the one who won't consider the other side of the equation? Um, OK.

"You NEVER do." points me back to something I posted earlier - "I know that numerous times in the past I've come in to a debate you've been having to take issue with your posting style, without taking a position in the debate." As I mentioned then, that's not what's going on here, but it seems like you think it is. Either that, or you just think that I always disagree with you, which isn't the case. Although I often do, especially lately.

Try the "your turn" strategy and see if that helps at all .

Attempt No. 3:

Do you disagree with post #2850? Do you think that the talking head in your video would disagree with post #2850?

Cuepee must be searching for an appropriate meme to accompany his response.

The only reason I am continuing this discussion is because I am curious whether Cuepee is mentally capable of ceding ground on the most minor of points.

What I wrote is post #2850 is correct. Every lawyer in this thread knows it is correct. Every non-lawyer in this thread knows it is correct. Even Cuepee knows it is correct. A rational person would write something like the following in response:

"Sure. What you wrote in post #2850 is correct. I was imprecise (or the talking head was a bit imprecise) in framing the issue initially, but let's move on. I want to talk about blah, blah, blah."

That sort of statement isn't an admission by Cuepee that he is an idiot (a charge, by the way, that I have never levelled at him). It doesn't even require Cuepee to admit that I understand the law better than him (even though I obviously do). It's the tiniest thing, really -- a harmless acknowledgment that he may have framed the issue inaccurately. It's the sort of small error that I and many many other posters have acknowledged countless times in this forum.

A good example is when Montrealcorp started making that weird argument in the Biden thread about whether 1% could ever be significant. When a bunch of people pointed out that he wasn't thinking about the issue clearly, he pushed back for a bit but then acknowledged his unclear thinking. He didn't cling like grim death to a mistake. He didn't go off on irrelevant tangents about how everyone is entitled to their opinion. He just owned an inconsequential mistake in his thinking. No one gave him a hard time about being mistaken in the first instance. No one thought less of him. To the contrary, most people probably respected his willingness to admit that he got mixed up for a bit. It's a sign of mental health.

Seems that "your turn" thing is not quite working. He probably considers it gaslighting, as he believes that lefties are inclined to do all the time to him. You should see it when he orders a Big Mac in Burger King by mistake, and then insists Burger King actually makes Big Macs.

Why would I when no one else does?

Is Bobo ceding any ground above or doubling and tripling down?

Every time I cite something that refers to 'knowledge' or 'intent', and how a change in the law where 'ignorance' of the knowledge and intent SHOULD NOT be a reason for Prosecutors to charge and prosecute, you come in to the thread to tell me I am wrong. That no one else holds that view and because you are a lawyer I should stop arguing it.

I post countless quotations showing my view is WIDELY held by others and while you are free to disagree with them all, that does not mean I have to cede to your view and not there's.

YOu have no desire to show you are capable of ceding ground on that singular issue you always challenge me on and instead try to spin it and then split off to other points where you feel you can be 'right' .


Will you acknowledge that my stated view, the one you have challenged me on as 'wrong' many times, is not wrong, and that what we have is a 'difference of opinion'? That as I have stated and believed 'both knowledge and intent have been deliberately built in to the law as a way to make it purposefully very difficult to prosecute, even when laws have been clearly broken and that if the intent was there an easy fix to that would be a reverse onus type law that requires they know or ask those who do know what the laws is, before acting in these key areas'. That simple change of the law would remove this ability to use 'ignorance' as a defense.

Will you cede that telling me I am wrong when I cite these instances, is in fact 'wrong'?

It does not matter. You are missing the crux of the dispute.

Let me try another way.

In the UFO thread I detailed how I have a belief that of the options of how this planet was seeded with life and those who discuss 2 of the varying options of 'random asteroid with seeds of life collided with earth' or 'alien civilization similar to current earth with the ability to transport seeds of life on satellites to collide with various planets deliberately in the hopes of starting some form of terra forming effect', that I tend to believe the latter.

I have every right to believe that and side with the scientist who I have read who go thru their logic and reasoning and why they believe that more likely of the two scenarios.


if we have a 2+2 scientists who tends towards the 'random asteroid' theory I DO NOT have to abandon my position just because they are a scientist and I am not. They using that as a reason to mock me for holding to my position is absolutely an Appeal to their Authority. Them mocking the actual scientists I cite who agree with my position is an Appeal to Ridicule.

The person(s) I am then arguing against are not correct just because of their degree and if they have any humility, instead of being offended a non scientist won't acquiesce to them, they will agree to disagree. But that is not what we would EVER see on 2+2, outside of myself (who continually agrees to disagree) as everyone else is arguing based on ego.

So what you see as me being 'adamant about my interpretation' is a WRONG interpretation by you. I am not adamant about any of it in a way I would tell you or ROcoco or others you are wrong to hold a countering view. I would grant in this example and the one I am arguing with Rococo that you have 'every right to believe differently'.

Why I am arguing with Rococo here and in the prior instance is exactly what he said when this argument started. He keeps telling me "I am wrong and yet I keep raising this".

THAT is the what is at issue here and I will write it out again so you don't miss it. He keeps telling me "I am wrong and yet I keep raising this".


Why would he say that? I did not accept I was wrong prior and do not now so of course I will keep raising it. Just like I agree with the scientists on the one theory, in this area of THEORY (and it is theory) I take a position he is in opposition too and that DOES NOT make me wrong prior or now.

But on 2+2 whether it is a scientist or lawyer there is not the humility to accept someone who is not a 'scientist' or 'lawyer' or in the 'field' has any right to argue or stick to the view potints of other professionals who hold differing views.

Attempt No. 4:

Do you disagree with post #2850? Do you think that the talking head in your video would disagree with post #2850?

Attempt #3 if we are both to play the same silly game.