Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're not ok with people defending Hillary/Bill with the "she/he was never convicted of a crime" line of reasoning?
When did I say anything about that? Nothing I said is even relevant to what you just posted. I said legal burdens of proof don't imply that we have knowledge a person is innocent if there is no evidence.
What does that have to do with the quoted post or this thread?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept that means the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It has nothing to do with how regular people should assess situations, and it certainly doesn't imply that we should make the positive claim that we know someone is innocent simply because there is no evidence.
I never said he was innocent.
I welcome law suits from him or his accusers to get to the bottom of this, especially if it is a Clinton conspiracy.
How do you feel about supporting the enabler of someone we already know is guilty?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a judicial concept that means the burden of proof is on the prosecution. That doesn't imply that ordinary folks should claim they know a person is innocent if there is no evidence either way.
I'm "ordinary folk" and until you can provide evidence, let's say like a Wikileaks email, that Trump sexually harassed women, you are just peeing in the wind.
I have no idea if Donald Trump is guilty of anything that is alleged, and I'm skeptical that anyone here has any actual knowledge, either. So how is it that so many people here seem to know with certainty that Trump is innocent regarding all of the accusations? At a minimum, wouldn't a position of uncertainty be required?
If you don't know X, you shouldn't assert X. If you don't know Trump is innocent, then you should assert "Trump is innocent." The corollary is also true: if you don't know Trump is guilty, you shouldn't assert that he is.
I know Trump is innocent because he's a republican and republicans have evangelical Christians as members. He represents the moral majority.
Why is it always women? If one man came forward and complained about inappropriate touching, then we might have something, but women? Not so much credibility there. Every one of them is lying and getting paid by the Clinton foundation.
Also because Hillary Clinton is Devil spawn and has never been proven guilty in 30 years of trying or burned at the stake yet. Why would one get a pass and not the other?
I know Trump is innocent because he's a republican and republicans have evangelical Christians as members. He represents the moral majority.
Why is it always women? If one man came forward and complained about inappropriate touching, then we might have something, but women? Not so much credibility there. Every one of them is lying and getting paid by the Clinton foundation.
Also because Hillary Clinton is Devil spawn and has never been proven guilty in 30 years of trying or burned at the stake yet. Why would one get a pass and not the other?
How do you feel about supporting the enabler of someone we already know is guilty?
When did I say whom I support?
Why can posts on this forum never stay on topic? If someone makes a post about an issue regarding Clinton (for example), posters will comment about how Trump has done something worse. This makes every thread devolve into "Who's best."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Jasper
I'm "ordinary folk" and until you can provide evidence, let's say like a Wikileaks email, that Trump sexually harassed women, you are just peeing in the wind.
You're missing my point. I'm not saying Trump is guilty or innocent. I'm saying that the positive claim that he is innocent isn't supported by a mere lack of evidence.
I know Trump is innocent because he's a republican and republicans have evangelical Christians as members. He represents the moral majority.
Why is it always women? If one man came forward and complained about inappropriate touching, then we might have something, but women? Not so much credibility there. Every one of them is lying and getting paid by the Clinton foundation.
Also because Hillary Clinton is Devil spawn and has never been proven guilty in 30 years of trying or burned at the stake yet. Why would one get a pass and not the other?
heavy sarcasm off
Do you believe that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted the women that accused him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
I'm not saying Trump is guilty or innocent. I'm saying that the positive claim that he is innocent isn't supported by a mere lack of evidence.
Yes it is, that's how logic, and reasoning works.
If you believe something that there is no proof of, that is not logical, or reasonable.
Now add the fact that the timing couldn't be more suspect, and that there are people, and other evidence to refute the claims, any logical, and reasonable person would believe that Trump is in fact innocent.
The women wouldn't even be able to get a civil suit to go to trial.
What evidence do you want. Women are violated all the time with most not reporting it because they are ashamed. And when it comes to rich and powerful men, women don't have a chance. It's their word against them.
I have no idea if Donald Trump is guilty of anything that is alleged, and I'm skeptical that anyone here has any actual knowledge, either. So how is it that so many people here seem to know with certainty that Trump is innocent regarding all of the accusations? At a minimum, wouldn't a position of uncertainty be required?
If you don't know X, you shouldn't assert X. If you don't know Trump is innocent, then you should assert "Trump is innocent." The corollary is also true: if you don't know Trump is guilty, you shouldn't assert that he is.
Right. Nobody knows if he did it or not. I've never said he was innocent, but I did defend the "locker room talk" because it was ridiculous. And people on this forum started accusing him of assaulting women based on his words from that recording which was not true. He was talking about what women "let" you do and what he "tried" to do.
As far as all of these women coming out all of a sudden, I don't believe ANY of them. If Trump did something to them they shouldn't have waited until the month before the election to come out and accuse him (right after these tapes of him talking about grabbing women were released). It's all too big of a coincidence. There have been enough scandals of women making false claims against men in an attempt to damage a mans reputation or to benefit the accusing woman to make me skeptical. And there is nothing more disgusting than lying about something like this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
heavy sarcasm off 