US politics general thread

[Cray]

Now I'm trolling?

Yes, or was that a rhetorical question?

You seem like a highly functioning adult, so it seems you should be able realize when something is hypothetical - or at the very least accept my further clarification that it was? The fact that your misunderstanding of my post counts as some sort of win in your book and that you take that as opportunity to crow and use silly emojies tells me all I need to know about your motivations in this thread...

 

[Pitbull]

I don't see anyone calling for Kavanaugh to be prosecuted until he's proven guilty. Well, nobody who isn't a fringe leftie. But don't worry, you just carry on strawmanning.

Sorry what? Are you saying no one claimed him to be guilty? Come now, please tell me this is what you're saying. You use the opinion of one man (Trump) as a defense for your claim, but then say no-one (accept fringe lefty/ies). So the shoe only fits when it's Trump? Your "Trump hating" showing up once again. Blinded much?

 

[Pitbull]

Yes, or was that a rhetorical question?

You seem like a highly functioning adult, so it seems you should be able realize when something is hypothetical - or at the very least accept my further clarification that it was? The fact that your misunderstanding of my post counts as some sort of win in your book and an opportunity to crow and use silly emojies tells me all I need to know about your motivations in this thread...

Please explain to me how I misunderstood your post? Are you denying your reference to "destroying evidence" was not in relation to Kavanaugh? I should accept it when you clarified it later because you got caught? Ok then I guess

 

[Pitbull]

Don't be obtuse for once in your life, it means he cannot be found guilty by a court, it says nothing about whether he did or did not assault Ford. Or do you think that destroying evidence of a crime means that crime didn't happen?

Just for clarity, I'm quoting your post again...

 

[Cray]

Please explain to me how I misunderstood your post? Are you denying your reference to "destroying evidence" was not in relation to Kavanaugh?

Sigh - okay last try for a bit of honest discussion, , I was trying to point out that a lack of evidence doesn't mean that the act didn't occur. The hypothetical scenario sketched out that what if evidence of a crime is destroyed, does that mean the crime didn't happen? I will concede that I could have been clearer in my initial post but I did clarify straight after that post, that fact that you now simply won't accept that and that you think you "caught" me in some thing that I clarified not moments later shows how dishonest you really are - you don't want to discuss things, you want to jump on anything that gives you the opportunity to shout

"I win, you lost libtard"

An honest response would be to say

"okay fair enough, it wasn't really clear but I accept that now hear my counter argument "

But you don't want to do that, you want to "win" so you jump on one particular interpretation of my post and ride it into the ground despite me telling you repeatedly that it was hypothetical?

The irony being is that you have spent the last few pages accusing everyone who dares to disagree with you as being dishonest without once looking in a mirror at your own behavior..

 

[Pitbull]

Sigh - okay last try for a bit of honest discussion, , I was trying to point out that a lack of evidence doesn't mean that the act didn't occur. The hypothetical scenario sketched out that what if evidence of a crime is destroyed, does that mean the crime didn't happen? I will concede that I could have been clearer in my initial post but I did clarify straight after that post, that fact that you now simply won't accept that and that you think you "caught" me in some thing that I clarified not moments later shows how dishonest you really are - you don't want to discuss things, you want to jump on anything that gives you the opportunity to shout



An honest response would be to say



But you don't want to do that, you want to "win" so you jump on one particular interpretation of my post and ride it into the ground despite me telling you repeatedly that it was hypothetical?

The irony being is that you have spent the last few pages accusing everyone who dares to disagree with you as being dishonest without once looking in a mirror at your own behavior..

No interpretation, you even used Ford as an example in that post. When I pointed out that there is no case of tampering of evidence you claimed it to be hypothetical and asking me if I know what it means... Please show to me where I have been dishonest here? You should own up to the fact that you was referring to the Kavanaugh case and when I pointed out that there is no case, you cried.

There is nothing more to it. I even quoted it again...

 

[Unhappy1]

lol, you are pretty deluded if you think people kneeling bothers me

But then again, you don't part take in much debating. Only post crap remarks, I find them entertaining at least so you not completely wasting your time.

Im glad you find me entertaining, i find you to be closely associated with Captain pot and kettle.

 

[Temujin]

Okay let's look specifically at the case of the Central Park Five, who were cited in the original article that kicked off this whole debate.

First, Trump took out a full page ad in the NYT calling for the death penalty before there was a conviction. Then AFTER they were exonerated due to DNA evidence and settled with the city of New York for $41million, Trump not only wouldn't apologise, he actually doubled down on his statements.



How is that not a complete disregard for due process and the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

Thing is, your entire argument rests on the fact that language has ambiguity which gives a scope for deniability, especially the stream of consciousness ramblings of a person like Trump - and you're forcing everyone else to use precise definitions when his own speaking lacks all specificity. But nobody looking at the facts around, for instance, undocumented immigration, or lock her up chants, misunderstands what Trump means.

Cool, great speech, one problem though... you've left out one tiny little fact. It was never a 'principle of innocent until proven guilty'. From the moment the story broke, they were never innocent in the eyes of anyone. They had confessed. It wasn't an 'innocent until proven guilty' in the eyes of the orange gorilla, the county or the world. They admitted guilt. They were guilty according to themselves. Everyone knew it... how? They themselves said they were guilty. It wasn't him saying they were guilty, they themselves said they were guilty.
As to his doubling down... and? What has his view on them got to do with 'no due process'. They got their due process, 40m+ of due process. I'd say, as with hillary, this just shows that regardless of his personal views, he still lets due process and law take its course. After all, they are still free with their millions are they not? Hillary got her due process and is still free right? /shrug

As for the rest of it eg 'the crowd chanted, therefore he doesn't want due process'... I see you're just going to go with the 'everyone knows, feels say so'

 

[cerebus]

Cool, great speech, one problem though... you've left out one tiny little fact. It was never a 'principle of innocent until proven guilty'. From the moment the story broke, they were never innocent in the eyes of anyone. They had confessed. It wasn't an 'innocent until proven guilty' in the eyes of the orange gorilla, the county or the world. They admitted guilt. They were guilty according to themselves. Everyone knew it... how? They themselves said they were guilty. It wasn't him saying they were guilty, they themselves said they were guilty.

They had signed confessions. That is not the same as being convicted in a court of law, you know, how due process works. And when they did receive their due process, they were exonerated despite his insistence that they should have all fried.

As to his doubling down... and? What has his view on them got to do with 'no due process'. They got their due process, 40m+ of due process.

Um... so? He had no power to convict them and no influence at all on the judicial process. All he could do was rail against justice. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Pitbull]

Im glad you find me entertaining, i find you to be closely associated with Captain pot and kettle.

I'm so happy for you! Well done!

 

[Temujin]

They had signed confessions. That is not the same as being convicted in a court of law, you know, how due process works. And when they did receive their due process, they were exonerated despite his insistence that they should have all fried.



Um... so? He had no power to convict them and no influence at all on the judicial process. All he could do was rail against justice. What the hell are you talking about?

Indeed... and at the time, the planet believed they were guilty because they said they were guilty, before the trial. The publics going to public. I have yet to see you in a rape or murder thread here saying eg 'now now guys, don't say 'cut his balls off', he must have due process, that rapist in dros is innocent'.
Shall we come back to these threads in 30 years and say, you see, temujin said 'let him rot'... clearly he doesn't want due process.? No, of course people want due process, your argument however is 'he tweeted teh word 'jail' therefore he means 'no due process'. There is no connection between what he said and what you say you 'know he means'

 

[HBee]

Lack of physical evidence of an event that happened 36 years ago is equal to innocence?

snip...

Yes. Its the law. Life does not need to be so complicated.

 

[cerebus]

Indeed... and at the time, the planet believed they were guilty because they said they were guilty, before the trial. The publics going to public. I have yet to see you in a rape or murder thread here saying eg 'now now guys, don't say 'cut his balls off', he must have due process, that rapist in dros is innocent'.
Shall we come back to these threads in 30 years and say, you see, temujin said 'let him rot'... clearly he doesn't want due process.? No, of course people want due process, your argument however is 'he tweeted jail' therefor no due process. There is no connection between what he said and what you say you 'know he means'

There is not even a trace of an argument here. Everyone thought they were guilty so it's okay to demand their execution in a full page ad?

 

[HBee]

That doesn't make the accusations false, just unproven.

But it makes the accused innocent.

 

[cerebus]

Yes. Its the law. Life does not need to be so complicated.

It isn't the law. Lack of evidence means that someone isn't necessarily guilty, but it's preposterous to suggest that it means they're innocent. Especially when there hasn't been a proper investigation. Can you prove whether I shoplifted razor blades when I was at Uni?

 

[HBee]

It isn't the law. Lack of evidence means that someone isn't necessarily guilty, but it's preposterous to suggest that it means they're innocent. Especially when there hasn't been a proper investigation.

He is innocent till proven guilty.

 

[cerebus]

He is innocent till proven guilty.

Yes he is, under the law. It doesn't mean he's factually innocent though.

 

[Pitbull]

Yes he is, under the law. It doesn't mean he's factually innocent though.

LOL, the gymnastics being done here are amazing

 

[cerebus]

LOL, the gymnastics being done here are amazing

They are two separate things: innocent until proven guilty vs innocent of having done the act. Plenty of people who are guilty as sin are walking around scott free.

 

[Temujin]

There is not even a trace of an argument here. Everyone thought they were guilty so it's okay to demand their execution in a full page ad?

He called for re introduction of death penalty for ALL murderers, and more policing as the city had become a haven for crime. He made reference to them yes, that being the current news outrage at the time

? And ? Was he a judge? Was he calling for trials and law to not take their coarse? Was the trial being skipped? Again, how do you connect 'bring back the death penatly' to 'no due process'?

Ie, who is saying, 'bring back the death penatly, without due process, just start executing people at will'? See what I'm asking?