drafterman

 its generally treated as an offense that merits only a fine.

That you push lack of disclosure as a civil offense and not a criminal one that falls under jurisdiction of the FEC is farcical 🤔. It is a criminal offense, its just rarely punished with any more than a fine, and those fines are rarely collected in full. 

MSNBC and CNN say he is guilty. Fox says it has not been proven in court.

What if they're just impartially considering all the possible reasons why there are massive socioeconomic disparities between blacks and every other race?

Nice strawman, lol

Then as said, its doubtful his testimony ends up being viewed as legitimate. Prosecution spent most of its time ripping apart Cohens credobility and integrity and throughly did so. For that same person to turn around and be used as a star witness, would be at best, ripped apart by defense, at worst, laughably absurd because his record of behavior alone more than establishes reasonable doubt to conclude he is not being truthful in testimony and rather opportunistic in nature as a means to avoid full extent of prosecution for all crimes. 

And again, its humurous tha you think 130k as a campaign finance violation merits jail time or removal from office. Whether or not Obama himself was involved is irrelevant, and not a damn person out of that finding was prosecuted with jail time, direct involvement or indirect not playing a factor at all. 

Its one thing to say the guy conspired with foreign government agents, thats easily viewable as treason. Its another to say a 130k campaign finance violation is somehow equivalent to the aforementioned at all in severity and would at all reasonably result in jail time or grounds for removal from office.  

What this investigation has been for awhile now is desperately trying to find something, anything really, that could be construed as a crime, even if that crime itself has nothing to do with the investigations granted purview. Conspiracy with Russia was why the investigation was granted, because that area is actually a severe crime, and so far not a shred of evidence linking Trump to criminal conspiracy with foreign government agents. 

This signifies the end rather than the beginning of anything.

I'll suspend judgment until I hear that the task force has actually done something worth being concerned about. If it remains unbiased, protects all religions equally, doesn't infringe upon the liberties of the non-religious, and doesn't push people around under the guise of "defending religious freedom", then I will have no problem with it. 

I think it's true that African-American people, for instance, have statistically lower IQ than white people -- I wouldn't say that saying that is necessarily racist. The problem, I think, is that IQ is a deeply flawed measure of intelligence constructed in a way that privileges people with other social and economic privilege.

So pointing out something that is factually accurate (racial differences) is akin to being "literally Hitler".

If you bothered to read the OP properly (not a bad idea to do before commenting), then you'd know this term is meaningless.

You haven't posted a shred of evidence to support your claims (unlike me). Instead, you've just called people whom disagree with you names, as if that's going to convince anyone (hint: it's not). This is a debate site where we post evidence/studies/sources to support what we say. If you can't rebut my racial claims without calling me a meaningless term (racist), then you don't belong here.

block mechanism for PM, please add I need to block someone ty

Going to work on this and other things in the next 2-3 weeks.

Lol. Being factual about provable racial differences is "racist".

So you're attempting to rebut my claim that racism is purely a slanderous term to discredit, and in doing so you're using a purely slanderous term to discredit.

Blacks have, on average, lower I.Q. than whites. Deal with it.

Wrong. They can accurately predict crime and poverty.

You're just an emotional zealot triggered out of your mind by the mention of race, and are evidently unable to comprehend the fact that races are different. Just a pathetic man, honestly.

To accuse someone of racism or being a racist, is nothing but a slanderous invocation.

Today,racism is demonised to the point of self-parody,

but if we take a moment to analyse its usage, we can see that it means nothing.

Let's say someone says that blacks need to be put back into slavery because they're not worthy of regular jobs. Most people are going to say that's racist.

Let's say someone says that black people have lower I.Q. than white people. Again, you'll be met with the term racist.

And here you see the issue. The first claim could be (rightly) seen as racial hatred. The second claim is factual and supported by a ridiculous amount of evidence (http://humanvarieties.org...),yet the conclusion is that they are both "racist".

In order words, it's still possible to be correct *and* "racist", however the latter label will have you pigeon-holed with real racial hatred (as we saw in the former example), as if you're wrong for pointing out facts.

That leads us to ask the question: what can we infer from the labelling of "racist?"

Not a whole lot, other than the fact that both claims refer to race. So merely referring to race, as if that's as bad as being Hitler, gets you called a "racist", and we know what happens when you're confirmed as such. So, there's a gigantic disconnect between the real parameters of "racism" (that it merely refers to race), and the application of it (that you're "literally Hitler"). That's because it doesn't have a concrete definition -- it merely exist to shut down reference to race.