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.
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 don't know if he is innocent or not, but one is innocent until proven guilt. Thus far, there is no evidence that Trump did any of the things he was accused of. If evidence is provided, I hope he burns. But so far the evidence points to a political hit job.
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 dont know if trump is innocent or guilty of the charges. all we are hearing is one side of the argument, and they seem rather suspicious in nature, especially the timing of these complaints. you cant tell me the republicans during the primary season didnt have these complaints, and you cant tell me that the clinton campaign just recently got them as well. these were released at a time when they would do the most damage to trump, and take the focus off of clinton and her criminal activities.
and then there is the complaints against bill clinton of a similar nature, and it was hillary that went after these women with a vengeance.
so lets say the complaints against trump are true, what we have here is the democrats showing their hypocrisy on the issue. with clinton it was no big deal, with trump it is "we need to eliminate this guy here and now because he is a horrible guy". the difference is that trump is a republican.
If you don't know whether he is innocent or guilty, then you should assert he is guilty. A basic conversational norm is that assertion is a claim to knowledge.
Oh, BS lol. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty.
Even if he is guilty, then we are left with choosing the lesser of two evils. Nothing could be as guilty as the Clintons...........ever.
I don't know if he is innocent or not, but one is innocent until proven guilt. Thus far, there is no evidence that Trump did any of the things he was accused of. If evidence is provided, I hope he burns. But so far the evidence points to a political hit job.
"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.
You said innocent until proven guilty. You appear to be backpedaling because it doesn't support your point of view anymore. The FBI Director is not a judge.
Lest say that a worker in the DOD has a personal an unsecured server at home where classified information is present, and the FBI conducts an investigation. What do you think will happen to that person?
Donald Trump was sued by the United States for racial discrimination and, in his words:
Does that mean Donald Trump is guilty of racial discrimination?
Didn't Hillary bring that up in the debate? I guess she thought he was guilty enough to be convicted in the court of public opinion? But at the same time, she's also guilty of quite a few things in the court of public opinion.
Lest say that a worker in the DOD has a personal an unsecured server at home where classified information is present, and the FBI conducts an investigation. What do you think will happen to that person?
What does that have to do with the quoted post or this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Oh, BS lol. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty.
Even if he is guilty, then we are left with choosing the lesser of two evils. Nothing could be as guilty as the Clintons...........ever.
"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.
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.
So you're not ok with people defending Hillary/Bill with the "she/he was never convicted of a crime" line of reasoning?
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.
