-
I'm sorry, but you've set up a straw man and knocked it down again here.
No, I haven't. I'm merely saying that evidence of something like that there is much money involved or that Lansman is benefiting personally would be needed to give the article any substance. I'm not saying that neither of these are the case or that the possibility doesn't exist, just that there's no real information in the article.
A strawman argument would be something like 'the author says/seems to be saying that [insert strawman], but this is obviously nonsense because [rebuttal of strawman]'.
Oliver Schick-
but the article wasn't really about Lansman personally gaining, it was about the lack of transparency, decision making etc. I also think the article was limited and just raised some questions I expect to be easily answered.
You have tho attempted to make it about the amount of money or Lansman personally gaining then suggested without these the article has no substance. Which is a strawman as the original article wasn't about that.
dst2
I'm sorry, but you've set up a straw man and knocked it down again here.
There's no allegation he's siphoning off money for personal profit. And generally when politicians are found to have set up slush funds, they're not for personal profit either. The point is that it is money that can be spent for political purposes over which there is no clear political control or accountability, which undermines the rules that have been put in place to try to ensure that our political system doesn't get corrupted.