[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Saelune:
Innocent people are punished already with 'Innocent until proven guilty'. They are punished when the guilty go free and many times get to continue to victimize the actual innocent.

So with that in your mind, what exactly is your 'moderate position' solution? You didn't answer the first time, maybe you'll answer the second time.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Innocent people are punished already with 'Innocent until proven guilty'. They are punished when the guilty go free and many times get to continue to victimize the actual innocent.

So with that in your mind, what exactly is your 'moderate position' solution? You didn't answer the first time, maybe you'll answer the second time.

I already answered it. That you even use the term I used in the answer suggests you saw it.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056851-POLITICS-If-Trump-is-Innocent-he-should-prove-it?page=11#24303885

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056851-POLITICS-If-Trump-is-Innocent-he-should-prove-it?page=11#24304077

Saelune:
I already answered it. That you even use the term I used in the answer suggests you saw it.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056851-POLITICS-If-Trump-is-Innocent-he-should-prove-it?page=11#24303885

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056851-POLITICS-If-Trump-is-Innocent-he-should-prove-it?page=11#24304077

First post is vague wishful thinking with no actual answer. Second, do you understand what Presumption of Innocence actually is? Do you not understand how investigations are carried out? Are you actually familiar with how our legal system and due process actually works? Because to be blunt, it sounds like you don't like the system because the people you don't like have rights within said system, as does anyone.

I've slowly realized that Schad basically covered everything and I already have my answer to the above. Have a good day, Saelune.

Leg End:

Saelune:
I already answered it. That you even use the term I used in the answer suggests you saw it.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056851-POLITICS-If-Trump-is-Innocent-he-should-prove-it?page=11#24303885

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056851-POLITICS-If-Trump-is-Innocent-he-should-prove-it?page=11#24304077

First post is vague wishful thinking with no actual answer. Second, do you understand what Presumption of Innocence actually is? Do you not understand how investigations are carried out? Are you actually familiar with how our legal system and due process actually works? Because to be blunt, it sounds like you don't like the system because the people you don't like have rights within said system, as does anyone.

I've slowly realized that Schad basically covered everything and I already have my answer to the above. Have a good day, Saelune.

The system does not work. I am not wrong for wanting a better one. Whats your answer then? Since apparently because I cant come up with the perfect solution, that invalidates my entire point, tell me how to fix it, and if you cant, then your point is invalid too by your standard.

Also you and Trump do not give the benefit of the doubt to others anyways. I think you only believe in 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' for your own side. I atleast acknowledge it is a flawed concept.

Right-Wingers have objectively proven to not believe in 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty', so Right-Wingers have no right to tell others to abide by it. That is hypocritical.

Saelune:
Right-Wingers have objectively proven to not believe in 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty', so Right-Wingers have no right to tell others to abide by it. That is hypocritical.

If Saelune does not like your political leaning, you are guilty of any crime you are accused of - because of your political leaning.

Abomination:

Saelune:
Right-Wingers have objectively proven to not believe in 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty', so Right-Wingers have no right to tell others to abide by it. That is hypocritical.

If Saelune does not like your political leaning, you are guilty of any crime you are accused of - because of your political leaning.

'How dare Saelune accuse the KKK of hating black people'

Leg End:
...SNIP...

Yeah, you just have to realize Saelune's point of view - that not punishing someone who might actually be innocent is punishing their victim - therefore if you want to avoid punishing the innocent you have to punish people who are maybe only very slightly more likely guilty than not, because throwing a significant number of innocent people in prison is better than any chance someone guilty might go free (which is the same as punishing their victim).

Saelune:
'How dare Saelune accuse the KKK of hating black people'

To be fair you claimed above that being male or Republican should be considered "contextual" evidence you are guilty of sexual assault.

Schadrach:

Leg End:
...SNIP...

Yeah, you just have to realize Saelune's point of view - that not punishing someone who might actually be innocent is punishing their victim - therefore if you want to avoid punishing the innocent you have to punish people who are maybe only very slightly more likely guilty than not, because throwing a significant number of innocent people in prison is better than any chance someone guilty might go free (which is the same as punishing their victim).

It's okay, we can now accuse people of being rapists (communists) to the (secret) police if we don't like them and they will be taken away to the nearest prison (camp).

Remember, Nazis are bad.

I love when my cheer section get together to jerk each other off.

Schadrach:

Leg End:
...SNIP...

Yeah, you just have to realize Saelune's point of view - that not punishing someone who might actually be innocent is punishing their victim - therefore if you want to avoid punishing the innocent you have to punish people who are maybe only very slightly more likely guilty than not, because throwing a significant number of innocent people in prison is better than any chance someone guilty might go free (which is the same as punishing their victim).

Saelune:
'How dare Saelune accuse the KKK of hating black people'

To be fair you claimed above that being male or Republican should be considered "contextual" evidence you are guilty of sexual assault.

To be fair, you are what you vote for.

Abomination:

Schadrach:

Leg End:
...SNIP...

Yeah, you just have to realize Saelune's point of view - that not punishing someone who might actually be innocent is punishing their victim - therefore if you want to avoid punishing the innocent you have to punish people who are maybe only very slightly more likely guilty than not, because throwing a significant number of innocent people in prison is better than any chance someone guilty might go free (which is the same as punishing their victim).

It's okay, we can now accuse people of being rapists (communists) to the (secret) police if we don't like them and they will be taken away to the nearest prison (camp).

Remember, Nazis are bad.

As opposed to Muslims and Immigrants like Trump wants to? If you're going to criticize me, make sure Trump isn't guilty of what you claim I am doing.

I love trump. I supported him when he ran in the primaries and when he ran in the general. It's wonderful that such a meme managed to win the US presidency based purely on campaigning skills. You've elected Reagan, a former-movie star, and then you've elected a tv reality show host... Subarashi! I love this timeline.

To add even more, he is giving my country a big 'ol bear hug, one which I thoroughly enjoy. Yeah, move that embassy! Recognize them heights! Woosh.

I love you Donnie. I listen to Official Donald Trump Anthem on repeat.

It'd be awkward if it has the reports from like American spies in Russia in it or something like that.

As most predicted, A federal judge ruled against Trump's blocking of congressional subpoena to investigate his financial records and endorsed Congressional powers to investigate the President.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/judge-rules-against-trump-in-lawsuit-to-block-democrats-subpoena-for-financial-records.html

As previously reported, Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump's now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html

Gaining access to Trump's financial documents will finally allow them to follow the money trail to better connect the events related to the suspicious activity. Of Course Trump isn't done trying to block investigators, but with every court ruling, they are one step closer to being able to actually move forward on being able to take action on previous reports.

TheIronRuler:
I love trump. I supported him when he ran in the primaries and when he ran in the general. It's wonderful that such a meme managed to win the US presidency based purely on campaigning skills. You've elected Reagan, a former-movie star, and then you've elected a tv reality show host... Subarashi! I love this timeline.

To add even more, he is giving my country a big 'ol bear hug, one which I thoroughly enjoy. Yeah, move that embassy! Recognize them heights! Woosh.

I love you Donnie. I listen to Official Donald Trump Anthem on repeat.

I do hope this is a joke. If not, you need to seek help. Quickly. There are plenty of good people to look up to in this world, this low life is not one of them. He didn't win on "campaigning power" the guy has been in bed with the mob forever. Anyone can threaten and lie out their arse and deceive people to screw them over for personal gain, but why would anyone think that is a good thing? As a society, if we elevate people for being a scum bag, that is all society will become. Why would we want to live in a world where everyone disrespects everyone and all things and destroys everything they touch instead of one where everyone works to make it a better place for everyone in it?

Lil devils x:
I do hope this is a joke.

Probably mostly not. If you're a rightish leaning Israeli then Trump is like the second coming (to use an amusingly inappropriate metaphor): he's giving Israel everything it wants and attacking anything and anyone opposed to what it wants.

Agema:

Lil devils x:
I do hope this is a joke.

Probably mostly not. If you're a rightish leaning Israeli then Trump is like the second coming (to use an amusingly inappropriate metaphor): he's giving Israel everything it wants and attacking anything and anyone opposed to what it wants.

.
I wonder how you've learned that, ey?
.

Lil devils x:
.

.
Mostly a joke, search for "Donald Trump Anthem" on youtube, at your own risk, it's graphic and hilarious. I do agree he is an absolute meme shit-lord at this point...

Abbas : "Hey lets do a peace-conference, taking into consideration the natural rights of both peoples"

Trump: "I'll let east-Asian countries throw some money at you so you'll shut up"

Classic Trump.

Lil devils x:
As most predicted, A federal judge ruled against Trump's blocking of congressional subpoena to investigate his financial records and endorsed Congressional powers to investigate the President.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/20/judge-rules-against-trump-in-lawsuit-to-block-democrats-subpoena-for-financial-records.html

As previously reported, Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. ? Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump?s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html

Gaining access to Trump's financial documents will finally allow them to follow the money trail to better connect the events related to the suspicious activity. Of Course Trump isn't done trying to block investigators, but with every court ruling, they are one step closer to being able to actually move forward on being able to take action on previous reports.

TheIronRuler:
I love trump. I supported him when he ran in the primaries and when he ran in the general. It's wonderful that such a meme managed to win the US presidency based purely on campaigning skills. You've elected Reagan, a former-movie star, and then you've elected a tv reality show host... Subarashi! I love this timeline.

To add even more, he is giving my country a big 'ol bear hug, one which I thoroughly enjoy. Yeah, move that embassy! Recognize them heights! Woosh.

I love you Donnie. I listen to Official Donald Trump Anthem on repeat.

I do hope this is a joke. If not, you need to seek help. Quickly. There are plenty of good people to look up to in this world, this low life is not one of them. He didn't win on "campaigning power" the guy has been in bed with the mob forever. Anyone can threaten and lie out their arse and deceive people to screw them over for personal gain, but why would anyone think that is a good thing? As a society, if we elevate people for being a scum bag, that is all society will become. Why would we want to live in a world where everyone disrespects everyone and all things and destroys everything they touch instead of one where everyone works to make it a better place for everyone in it?

He uses dark humor and cynicism to get by living in a war zone.

TheIronRuler:

I love you Donnie. I listen to Official Donald Trump Anthem on repeat.

I checked it out and it's retarded, and not in a fun good way.

Saelune:
I love when my cheer section get together to jerk each other off.

Aww. Did I misrepresent your intentionally vaguely expressed position? Then clarify.

Hell, let's try a couple of hypotheticals, if you want more information in any of these cases, just ask and I'll fill in the details you want if they are discoverable (some things, especially in the first case might no longer exist or be useless due to the passage of time for example):

1. Two women (sisters) accuse a man of repeatedly raping them 40 years ago. They tell a nearly identical tale - that he was hired to babysit them and once their parents had left he stripped them and took turns raping them repeatedly while they screamed and cried, but no help came. They claim he did this each time he babysat them for an entire summer. Because of the age of the accusation, no physical evidence can be obtained. He was definitely hired to babysit them and does not contest that part, but denies the allegations of rape. No one else in the area saw or heard anything unusual, they never said anything about it in the following 4 decades to anyone until now, and never suggested they wanted a different babysitter at the time. A psychiatric evaluator testifies that the women are definitely traumatized by what happened to them, but cannot prove or disprove whether any element of their testimony is factual. Should he be punished?

2. A woman was found tied up, claims to have been physically assaulted, tied up, then sexually assaulted with a coat hanger by her ex. She gives a detailed very specific account of what happened, down to the time within a ten minute window. States exactly where he'll be right now, at a school a couple of miles away, likely in his car, waiting to pickup his son because he has custody for the weekend. Man is exactly where she said he'd be. There is no physical evidence of another person coming to the house - her account actually explains this, claiming that he wore gloves, a hairnet, a face mask, etc and carried the rope and other supplies used in a black duffle bag. No trace of the black duffle bag nor any of the forensic countermeasures she said he had used is ever found, despite a thorough search of the area. His credit/debit card records don't show any suspicious purchases or cash withdrawals that might explain where his "rape kit" came from. According to him, he flew in from Vegas to pick up his son from school to get their time together started as quick as possible, and the school told him to wait until the end of the school day, so he just sat in his car until the police picked him up. Should he be punished?

1 is based directly on an actual case. 2 is based on an actual case with one tiny adjustment that I think is illustrative.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
I love when my cheer section get together to jerk each other off.

Aww. Did I misrepresent your intentionally vaguely expressed position? Then clarify.

Hell, let's try a couple of hypotheticals, if you want more information in any of these cases, just ask and I'll fill in the details you want if they are discoverable (some things, especially in the first case might no longer exist or be useless due to the passage of time for example):

1. Two women (sisters) accuse a man of repeatedly raping them 40 years ago. They tell a nearly identical tale - that he was hired to babysit them and once their parents had left he stripped them and took turns raping them repeatedly while they screamed and cried, but no help came. They claim he did this each time he babysat them for an entire summer. Because of the age of the accusation, no physical evidence can be obtained. He was definitely hired to babysit them and does not contest that part, but denies the allegations of rape. No one else in the area saw or heard anything unusual, they never said anything about it in the following 4 decades to anyone until now, and never suggested they wanted a different babysitter at the time. A psychiatric evaluator testifies that the women are definitely traumatized by what happened to them, but cannot prove or disprove whether any element of their testimony is factual. Should he be punished?

2. A woman was found tied up, claims to have been physically assaulted, tied up, then sexually assaulted with a coat hanger by her ex. She gives a detailed very specific account of what happened, down to the time within a ten minute window. States exactly where he'll be right now, at a school a couple of miles away, likely in his car, waiting to pickup his son because he has custody for the weekend. Man is exactly where she said he'd be. There is no physical evidence of another person coming to the house - her account actually explains this, claiming that he wore gloves, a hairnet, a face mask, etc and carried the rope and other supplies used in a black duffle bag. No trace of the black duffle bag nor any of the forensic countermeasures she said he had used is ever found, despite a thorough search of the area. His credit/debit card records don't show any suspicious purchases or cash withdrawals that might explain where his "rape kit" came from. According to him, he flew in from Vegas to pick up his son from school to get their time together started as quick as possible, and the school told him to wait until the end of the school day, so he just sat in his car until the police picked him up. Should he be punished?

1 is based directly on an actual case. 2 is based on an actual case with one tiny adjustment that I think is illustrative.

I am just amused by how much I piss off all you 'Not a Republican but...'s. Also amused by how more leeway is given to shitting on me than is given to calling out bigotry.

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence. The women should not be sent death threats either, regardless.

2. Needs more evidence. Sounds like a case where more evidence would exist to prove one side. But this is exactly the kind of case that I feel assuming either is automatically right is a problem.

On topic: Trump absolutely could prove his innocence (if he is innocent) and consistently chooses not to. He constantly holds evidence and refuses to give information that he is legally obligated to give. Trump is obstructing justice and committing fraud and other crimes and solely because he is the Republican President and that Republicans refuse to stand up to their own is why he has gotten away with as much as he has.

Saelune:

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence.

So, because someone has been accused of something that allegedly happened 40 years ago that is utterly impossible to prove or even disprove, they should be restricted in what they are free to do for probably the rest of their natural life because, again, it is impossible to disprove? Would you hold yourself to this same standard?

Leg End:

Saelune:

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence.

So, because someone has been accused of something that allegedly happened 40 years ago that is utterly impossible to prove or even disprove, they should be restricted in what they are free to do for probably the rest of their natural life because, again, it is impossible to disprove? Would you hold yourself to this same standard?

Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

Saelune:
Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

So will you hold yourself to a standard of voting only for people that have proven as absolute fact that they have not done [insert crazy bullshit here]? Would you hold yourself to the standard that unless you can completely disprove accusations against you, that you should be stripped of your rights because you are tainted with said accusations? I am having great trouble understanding how someone who claims to campaign for rights can support a system in which those rights can be infringed upon with something as little as an accusation. I firmly believe that your hatred for Trump and 'Right-Wingers' is clouding your judgement and your desire for Justice out of that is blinding you to the Injustices you would commit.

Saelune:

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence. The women should not be sent death threats either, regardless.

Before I point out where I got this one from, you realize you are saying he should be permanently barred from those positions because it's practically impossible to definitively prove you didn't do something like that, right? In this guys case, he doesn't argue with the fact that he was left alone with access to the girls that would provide him all the opportunity in the world, so if we assume he's totally innocent how would he even *try* to prove that? Let alone the Kavanaugh case where it happened "sometime that summer" and

So, this one is based on an actual case from the UK. The sisters alleged this happened when they were age 6-7 and 8-9 in 1974-1975, the man accused was 14 at the time and later became a police officer. He was tried in June 2011. He was convicted and sentenced to 8 years, later reduced to 5 years, and being put on the sex offender register.

Saelune:

2. Needs more evidence. Sounds like a case where more evidence would exist to prove one side. But this is exactly the kind of case that I feel assuming either is automatically right is a problem.

What sort of evidence would you be looking for? This one is also based on a real case, to which I made one small change (literally what the accused had for breakfast that morning, and the fallout of that). Since it's based off a real case, if you need more evidence I can tell you what the real investigation found, if anything. Just tell me what you're looking for. I'll throw one at you for free, since you might not think of it: video from the airport shows that he didn't bring the black duffle mentioned with him on the plane (or indeed any luggage), but it wasn't anything unique and could be bought nearly anywhere.

Saelune:
Republicans refuse to stand up to their own is why he has gotten away with as much as he has.

I can't argue that. So long as he's President, he can't be formally charged with a crime and put through the court system. So long as he's President, the only option to apply criminal justice to him is impeachment and removal from office to remove that protection, and impeachment relies on being able to get both houses of Congress to vote as desired, as the House puts things in motion but the Senate has to vote hm out of office. The Senate is highly unlikely to do so, unless several senators follow the lead of Justin Amash.

A failed attempt at impeachment will...not help...Democrat chances in 2020. So the best the Dems can do if they want to impeach Trump is either take the Senate in 2020 and then impeach Trump if he gets reelected or use their ability to investigate and hope to dredge up enough dirt that enough GOP Senators can't turn a blind eye to it without risking their own offices.

I honestly suspect whether one term or two he won't get impeached for entirely political reasons, but there's a real chance he'll get charged as soon as his term is up. Part of me wonders if he's clever enough to be somewhere that won't extradite to the US on the last day of his term.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

So will you hold yourself to a standard of voting only for people that have proven as absolute fact that they have not done [insert crazy bullshit here]? Would you hold yourself to the standard that unless you can completely disprove accusations against you, that you should be stripped of your rights because you are tainted with said accusations? I am having great trouble understanding how someone who claims to campaign for rights can support a system in which those rights can be infringed upon with something as little as an accusation. I firmly believe that your hatred for Trump and 'Right-Wingers' is clouding your judgement and your desire for Justice out of that is blinding you to the Injustices you would commit.

I vote Democrat. My party doesn't have your party's problem of endorsing pedophiles and rapists. When one of ours does something wrong, we drop them. Even Al Franken got dropped. Roy Moore on the other hand, still allowed to represent Republicans.

Your idolation of Trump and right-wing 'values' is clouding your own judgement. The Republican Party cares more about spiting the left than it does about sticking to its own supposed ideals. So what is it? Small government or banning abortions? What is it? Freedom of Speech, or 'criticizing Trump is treason'? What is it? Religious Freedom, or abusing Muslims?

For a party who claims to be about small-town Christian values, you prop up a New York elitist athiest. By the way, most Trump supporters already (and Trump too) have committed many sins.

Idol Worship, graven images, stealing and bearing false witness. And Trump has committed adlutry, another broken commandment.

TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL! Republicans have condemned the left for less than what Trump has provenly done. If you cared about justice, you would never support Trump, but here you are.

Schadrach:

Saelune:

1. He should not be jailed, but he should also not be allowed on the Supreme Court, the Presidency, or allowed to babysit until he can definitively prove his innocence. The women should not be sent death threats either, regardless.

Before I point out where I got this one from, you realize you are saying he should be permanently barred from those positions because it's practically impossible to definitively prove you didn't do something like that, right? In this guys case, he doesn't argue with the fact that he was left alone with access to the girls that would provide him all the opportunity in the world, so if we assume he's totally innocent how would he even *try* to prove that? Let alone the Kavanaugh case where it happened "sometime that summer" and

So, this one is based on an actual case from the UK. The sisters alleged this happened when they were age 6-7 and 8-9 in 1974-1975, the man accused was 14 at the time and later became a police officer. He was tried in June 2011. He was convicted and sentenced to 8 years, later reduced to 5 years, and being put on the sex offender register.

Saelune:

2. Needs more evidence. Sounds like a case where more evidence would exist to prove one side. But this is exactly the kind of case that I feel assuming either is automatically right is a problem.

What sort of evidence would you be looking for? This one is also based on a real case, to which I made one small change (literally what the accused had for breakfast that morning, and the fallout of that). Since it's based off a real case, if you need more evidence I can tell you what the real investigation found, if anything. Just tell me what you're looking for. I'll throw one at you for free, since you might not think of it: video from the airport shows that he didn't bring the black duffle mentioned with him on the plane (or indeed any luggage), but it wasn't anything unique and could be bought nearly anywhere.

Saelune:
Republicans refuse to stand up to their own is why he has gotten away with as much as he has.

I can't argue that. So long as he's President, he can't be formally charged with a crime and put through the court system. So long as he's President, the only option to apply criminal justice to him is impeachment and removal from office to remove that protection, and impeachment relies on being able to get both houses of Congress to vote as desired, as the House puts things in motion but the Senate has to vote hm out of office. The Senate is highly unlikely to do so, unless several senators follow the lead of Justin Amash.

A failed attempt at impeachment will...not help...Democrat chances in 2020. So the best the Dems can do if they want to impeach Trump is either take the Senate in 2020 and then impeach Trump if he gets reelected or use their ability to investigate and hope to dredge up enough dirt that enough GOP Senators can't turn a blind eye to it without risking their own offices.

I honestly suspect whether one term or two he won't get impeached for entirely political reasons, but there's a real chance he'll get charged as soon as his term is up. Part of me wonders if he's clever enough to be somewhere that won't extradite to the US on the last day of his term.

You think this is a 'gotcha'? It isn't. He shouldn't be a police officer either.

You think this unclear case is a gotcha either? IT PROVES MY POINT! Assuming one side, either side, is automaticaly right is absurd.

As for impeachment, if it fails, then it is because the government is corrupt. If it succeeds, then bye Trump. People saying it wont help are just trying to sabotage the left.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Some of us actually have standards when it comes to who runs the government. Most of us didn't vote for Trump.

So will you hold yourself to a standard of voting only for people that have proven as absolute fact that they have not done [insert crazy bullshit here]? Would you hold yourself to the standard that unless you can completely disprove accusations against you, that you should be stripped of your rights because you are tainted with said accusations? I am having great trouble understanding how someone who claims to campaign for rights can support a system in which those rights can be infringed upon with something as little as an accusation. I firmly believe that your hatred for Trump and 'Right-Wingers' is clouding your judgement and your desire for Justice out of that is blinding you to the Injustices you would commit.

No seriously, take your own damn advice. Because if you did, you would not be a Trump supporter.

Saelune:
I vote Democrat. My party doesn't have your party's problem of endorsing pedophiles and rapists.

Last I checked, my party has no such issues.

Your idolation of Trump and right-wing 'values' is clouding your own judgement.

...You sure you're addressing the right person?I have no such idolatry for Donald, and my views are socially liberal. Well, actual liberal.

The Republican Party cares more about spiting the left than it does about sticking to its own supposed ideals.

The Dems care more about shitting on Trump than they do actually having a platform.

So what is it? Small government or banning abortions? What is it? Freedom of Speech, or 'criticizing Trump is treason'? What is it? Religious Freedom, or abusing Muslims?

Microscopic government, First Amendment, believe whatever ethereal stuff you want. You're actively attacking a strawman that does not exist here.

For a party who claims to be about small-town Christian values, you prop up a New York elitist athiest. By the way, most Trump supporters already (and Trump too) have committed many sins.

I. Am. Not. A. Republican.

Idol Worship, graven images, stealing and bearing false witness. And Trump has committed adlutry, another broken commandment.

...And I care about any of those besides any potential for theft or lies?

TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL! Republicans have condemned the left for less than what Trump has provenly done. If you cared about justice, you would never support Trump, but here you are.

If you cared about justice, you'd support things like due process. But here we are.

Saelune:
You think this is a 'gotcha'? It isn't. He shouldn't be a police officer either.

Well, considering a conviction, it's a logical conclusion. But it sounds like you're against him being an officer even without it. With that presented evidence, would you have truly been able to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty?

You think this unclear case is a gotcha either? IT PROVES MY POINT! Assuming one side, either side, is automaticaly right is absurd.

...With everything you're saying, I'm beginning to understand how you can say you campaign for rights, yet support throwing those rights in the trash.

Saelune:
No seriously, take your own damn advice. Because if you did, you would not be a Trump supporter.

Well he's certainly lost a fair bit of my backing after stuff like the bump stock ban and generally being wishwash. Too bad the Libertarian Party isn't caring about putting forward an actual Libertarian, and the Dems are just dead at the starting line. Can't run a party on just saying "Fuck Drumpf".

Leg End:

Saelune:
I vote Democrat. My party doesn't have your party's problem of endorsing pedophiles and rapists.

Last I checked, my party has no such issues.

Your idolation of Trump and right-wing 'values' is clouding your own judgement.

...You sure you're addressing the right person?I have no such idolatry for Donald, and my views are socially liberal. Well, actual liberal.

The Republican Party cares more about spiting the left than it does about sticking to its own supposed ideals.

The Dems care more about shitting on Trump than they do actually having a platform.

So what is it? Small government or banning abortions? What is it? Freedom of Speech, or 'criticizing Trump is treason'? What is it? Religious Freedom, or abusing Muslims?

Microscopic government, First Amendment, believe whatever ethereal stuff you want. You're actively attacking a strawman that does not exist here.

For a party who claims to be about small-town Christian values, you prop up a New York elitist athiest. By the way, most Trump supporters already (and Trump too) have committed many sins.

I. Am. Not. A. Republican.

Idol Worship, graven images, stealing and bearing false witness. And Trump has committed adlutry, another broken commandment.

...And I care about any of those besides any potential for theft or lies?

TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL! Republicans have condemned the left for less than what Trump has provenly done. If you cared about justice, you would never support Trump, but here you are.

If you cared about justice, you'd support things like due process. But here we are.

Saelune:
You think this is a 'gotcha'? It isn't. He shouldn't be a police officer either.

Well, considering a conviction, it's a logical conclusion. But it sounds like you're against him being an officer even without it. With that presented evidence, would you have truly been able to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty?

You think this unclear case is a gotcha either? IT PROVES MY POINT! Assuming one side, either side, is automaticaly right is absurd.

...With everything you're saying, I'm beginning to understand how you can say you campaign for rights, yet support throwing those rights in the trash.

Saelune:
No seriously, take your own damn advice. Because if you did, you would not be a Trump supporter.

Well he's certainly lost a fair bit of my backing after stuff like the bump stock ban and generally being wishwash. Too bad the Libertarian Party isn't caring about putting forward an actual Libertarian, and the Dems are just dead at the starting line. Can't run a party on just saying "Fuck Drumpf".

Yes, yes, I am well aware of how you're a 'Im not a republican, but...'. I alluded as much in an earlier post.

You might want to stop doing and saying all the Republican things if you want me to believe otherwise.

I do support due process. It is Trump and Kavanaugh who don't. I just think Due Process could be done better.

People who's job it is to enforce and or create the law should be legally clean.

What you are calling rights I am pointing out as unfair biased privileges of people who abuse them. I support equal rights. But 'rights' is a real vague term anyways. I oppose the right to rape whoever you want. I oppose the right to oppress people for their skin color. But it doesn't sound so bad to oppose those rights when you spell it out. But that is why bigots like to rephrase their bigotry as 'political differences'.

Saelune:
Yes, yes, I am well aware of how you're a 'Im not a republican, but...'. I alluded as much in an earlier post.

There is no 'but'. I am not a Republican, I have never been a Republican, and as far as I can tell now, I will never be a Republican. I can however tell you that I was a Democrat before I realized that they didn't value Rights or Freedom in much of any capacity. Are you actually trying to Gaslight me?

You might want to stop doing and saying all the Republican things if you want me to believe otherwise.

The GOP supports legal abortion?

I do support due process. ... I just think Due Process could be done better.

By removing key rights and freedoms and components of due process. It's like saying you supports rights and freedoms while also saying we need watchlists, which I also disagree with the Dems, Republicans, and Donald on.

People who's job it is to enforce and or create the law should be legally clean.

Aye, but your definition of clean would also mean simply accused with no way of proving otherwise, short of a GoPro strapped to your face.

What you are calling rights I am pointing out as unfair biased privileges of people who abuse them.

The Constitution? And every other right reserved for The People?

I support equal rights. But

See, unlike me with Republicans, you actually use the word 'But'.

'rights' is a real vague term anyways.

No it isn't.

I oppose the right to rape whoever you want. I oppose the right to oppress people for their skin color.

You really ought to read this, particularly that bit about Jefferson's relation. You(on some strange level) agree more with it than you think.

But it doesn't sound so bad to oppose those rights when you spell it out.

So rape and racism need spelling out? Are you sure about that? Sounds clear as day.

But that is why bigots like to rephrase their bigotry as 'political differences'.

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

Leg End:

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

Might I suggest to you that you're present distaste for Republicans is sourced directly from Democrats dehumanizing them and associating them with racists and sexists?

tstorm823:

Might I suggest to you that you're present distaste for Republicans is sourced directly from Democrats dehumanizing them and associating them with racists and sexists?

...Were you trying to quote Saelune or was that actually for me? If the latter, can you explain?

Leg End:

Saelune:
Yes, yes, I am well aware of how you're a 'Im not a republican, but...'. I alluded as much in an earlier post.

There is no 'but'. I am not a Republican, I have never been a Republican, and as far as I can tell now, I will never be a Republican. I can however tell you that I was a Democrat before I realized that they didn't value Rights or Freedom in much of any capacity. Are you actually trying to Gaslight me?

You might want to stop doing and saying all the Republican things if you want me to believe otherwise.

The GOP supports legal abortion?

I do support due process. ... I just think Due Process could be done better.

By removing key rights and freedoms and components of due process. It's like saying you supports rights and freedoms while also saying we need watchlists, which I also disagree with the Dems, Republicans, and Donald on.

People who's job it is to enforce and or create the law should be legally clean.

Aye, but your definition of clean would also mean simply accused with no way of proving otherwise, short of a GoPro strapped to your face.

What you are calling rights I am pointing out as unfair biased privileges of people who abuse them.

The Constitution? And every other right reserved for The People?

I support equal rights. But

See, unlike me with Republicans, you actually use the word 'But'.

'rights' is a real vague term anyways.

No it isn't.

I oppose the right to rape whoever you want. I oppose the right to oppress people for their skin color.

You really ought to read this, particularly that bit about Jefferson's relation. You(on some strange level) agree more with it than you think.

But it doesn't sound so bad to oppose those rights when you spell it out.

So rape and racism need spelling out? Are you sure about that? Sounds clear as day.

But that is why bigots like to rephrase their bigotry as 'political differences'.

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

tstorm823:

Leg End:

And why the bigoted like to dehumanize their opponents to justify their bigotry, or otherwise attempt to associate them with the worst imaginable. Hint hint.

Might I suggest to you that you're present distaste for Republicans is sourced directly from Democrats dehumanizing them and associating them with racists and sexists?

Explain to me how Republicans are not racist and actually are pro-equal rights. Do it. I'd love to see you try.

All either of you are doing is telling me I am wrong for thinking a political party that constantly votes against equal rights and constantly creates laws and policies that attack and hurt minorities is bigoted. So, without just showing me Trump holding a defiled rainbow flag or some self-hating person with a MAGA hat on, explain to me with actual evidence how Republicans are the good guys.

I'll wait. I am still waiting for Zontar to explain how Trump is pro-LGBT, but its been...jeez, 2 years since he said he would.

Saelune:
Explain to me how Republicans are not racist and actually are pro-equal rights. Do it. I'd love to see you try.

Explain how they are racist and are anti-equal rights. You're the one obsessed with them and saying I am one despite me not being one. Explain your reasoning to the Libertarian. Even if I can spout off a few quips myself.

Actually, I don't even know what I'm doing. I'm arguing with someone who doesn't even understand that my political party is not Republican. But go ahead, say I'm a Republican. It'll totally make me sympathetic to your view.

All either of you are doing is telling me I am wrong for thinking a political party that constantly votes against equal rights and constantly creates laws and policies that attack and hurt minorities is bigoted.

No, I'm telling you that you're supporting a party that makes everything about the color of your skin or the bits dangling or not between your legs. I genuinely care about none of this.

So, without just showing me Trump holding a defiled rainbow flag or some self-hating person with a MAGA hat on, explain to me with actual evidence how Republicans are the good guys.

Saelune, do you see everything in black and white?

I'll wait. I am still waiting for Zontar to explain how Trump is pro-LGBT, but its been...jeez, 2 years since he said he would.

Zontar is kill and has been for that long. He's unlikely to ever come back.

Leg End:
Explain how they are racist and are anti-equal rights.

Well, probably a good place to start would be all the racist and anti-equality policies they push for and put in place, and all the courting of people boasting about their racism and anti-equality. Not like they are pretending very hard to be otherwise.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here