Trump Ends Obama’s ‘Operation Choke Point’ A direct blow to Obama

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Even without my anecdotal evidence, your stance on the matter is illogical at best.

You haven't provided any anecdotal evidence. Nor, have you demonstrated that you even have a grasp of my stance on the matter.

a reply to: windword

What isn't anecdotal evidence? My job deals with the evidence of trials of people suspected of federal financial crimes. I have consistently seen, both before and after OCH, plenty of indictments, trials, and convictions on money-laundering charges.

The evidence is that Operation Choke Hold's existence is not a determinant on whether or not money-laundering cases get tried in a court of law. Your claim is that, without something to replace OCH, it will be "open season for money launderers." The reality differs with your claim. The evidence is my job.

Again, if you choose not to believe me, so be it--I don't really care--but you appear to lack an actual understanding of the term "anecdotal evidence."

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Saying that you've seen anecdotal evidence and claiming that you have been privy to anecdotal evidence is NOT anecdotal evidence. I don't know what your job is, are you a forensic accountant?

Does your job have a lot of unregulated payday loan houses that are bringing in $1800 plus for a $600 dollar "loan" crossing your desk?

a reply to: windword

Just for fun, then I'm done:

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.

Since, by law, I cannot scan documents pertaining to ongoing cases (and I'm not going to research evidence pertaining to already-adjudicated cases that are now in the public domain) and post it on the internet, I acknowledge that my anecdotal evidence (i.e.: My personal testimony or statement that I gave to you) is limited in value to you, but I also know that if I cared enough about you accepting my comment as valid, I could easily prove it to you.

But like I said, I don't really care if you believe me, and this is the end of my participation in this nonsense.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


I know what anecdotal evidence is, and even by your own definition, you have shared no anecdotal evidence, only that you're aware of evidence that you can't share.

You haven't even explained how to happen to come about this evidence. Are you a forensic accountant? Do forensic accountants report to you? Why should I believe that you know more about the avenues of money laundering than Obama's administration and its advisors?

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: windword

But like I said, I don't really care if you believe me, and this is the end of my participation in this nonsense.

Best regards.