So…. Someone with zero proof to back up their claim is someone to be believed 100% without doubt?
Has no one explained to you how these things work?
I think the dude is a despicable piece of shit- but when we start holding people’s feet to the fire just because someone thinks they may have done something with no proof to back it up-
You may as well just elect him. Because you’re basically living in the world he wants anyway.
Personally, I’ll be holding out for concrete evidence instead of making a fool of myself online.
This is a more civil response, in the interest of genuine discussion. I was a drunk asshole that first time around and you didn’t deserve that.
Ok, first and foremost, I admit that I don’t have direct evidence of him doing that exact thing. I’ll also admit that I’m not even going to bother looking for any, because it doesn’t change my original point anyways, which is this:
It’s foolish to assume there’s zero evidence when there’s such a clear cut pattern of behavior. There’s Modus Operandi.
We’re talking about someone who is infamously corrupt. He’s been impeached twice. He’s on the hook for almost 100 convictions. It’s been established in court that he’s committed tons of fraud. There’s a plethora of record of him being disingenuous, deceitful, and carries an absolute disregard for the law.
It’s so egregious that anyone questioning this pattern of behavior must be either amazingly ignorant of current events or simply arguing in bad faith. Which is something trolls actively do.
Now, I’m not a prosecutor trying to charge of him of this specific crime. I’m not even trying assert it’s genuine validity. This is a post on a website. I don’t need the same level of certainty as a jury would, since I’m not in actively making that case.
What I AM saying is that it’s either ridiculously ignorant or maliciously disingenuous to apply the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in this discussion. There’s a huge enough pattern of behavior to give this some plausibility.
Is that equivalent to concrete evidence of this specific crime? Again, no. But to sit there and argue innocence when there’s such a clear pattern of behavior is insultingly disingenuous.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard. The point is- there is no proof. There’s enough to hang him on. Making shit up is only diluting the waters and giving them an argument of doubt.
Cause someone is a shit person, doesn’t mean they’re guilty of evening you can throw at them. There’s a reason for the concept of innocence until proven guilty. It’s what separates us from tyrants. And because they do it- isn’t sufficient reason for us to do it.
You know what, you have a valid point. I was also rude to you earlier and for that I apologize. So, in the interest of good faith discussion, I’ll provide a proper reply to one of your comments. One moments, please.
So…. Someone with zero proof to back up their claim is someone to be believed 100% without doubt?
Has no one explained to you how these things work?
I think the dude is a despicable piece of shit- but when we start holding people’s feet to the fire just because someone thinks they may have done something with no proof to back it up-
You may as well just elect him. Because you’re basically living in the world he wants anyway.
Personally, I’ll be holding out for concrete evidence instead of making a fool of myself online.
This is a more civil response, in the interest of genuine discussion. I was a drunk asshole that first time around and you didn’t deserve that.
Ok, first and foremost, I admit that I don’t have direct evidence of him doing that exact thing. I’ll also admit that I’m not even going to bother looking for any, because it doesn’t change my original point anyways, which is this:
It’s foolish to assume there’s zero evidence when there’s such a clear cut pattern of behavior. There’s Modus Operandi.
We’re talking about someone who is infamously corrupt. He’s been impeached twice. He’s on the hook for almost 100 convictions. It’s been established in court that he’s committed tons of fraud. There’s a plethora of record of him being disingenuous, deceitful, and carries an absolute disregard for the law.
It’s so egregious that anyone questioning this pattern of behavior must be either amazingly ignorant of current events or simply arguing in bad faith. Which is something trolls actively do.
Now, I’m not a prosecutor trying to charge of him of this specific crime. I’m not even trying assert it’s genuine validity. This is a post on a website. I don’t need the same level of certainty as a jury would, since I’m not in actively making that case.
What I AM saying is that it’s either ridiculously ignorant or maliciously disingenuous to apply the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in this discussion. There’s a huge enough pattern of behavior to give this some plausibility.
Is that equivalent to concrete evidence of this specific crime? Again, no. But to sit there and argue innocence when there’s such a clear pattern of behavior is insultingly disingenuous.
There you go, a fair response.
I wasn’t arguing innocence. I was simply saying the court of public opinion should remain silent until the opinions are justified.
But why the double standard? He’s certainly not staying silent, even with all the gag orders.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard. The point is- there is no proof. There’s enough to hang him on. Making shit up is only diluting the waters and giving them an argument of doubt.
Fair point, assuming that you’re acknowledging that his accusations are also not right.
Can you claim that with legitimate certainty though? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And that’s still not accounting for the evidence of all the other similar terrible things he’s done. Again, Modus Operandi.
Cause someone is a shit person, doesn’t mean they’re guilty of evening you can throw at them. There’s a reason for the concept of innocence until proven guilty. It’s what separates us from tyrants. And because they do it- isn’t sufficient reason for us to do it.
Best to wait it out and see how it unfolds.
That’s a great point. Thanks for the civil discussion.
You stopped being worth listening to when you presupposed that there’s zero proof. Goodbye.Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I’m leaving it up for posterity.
So show proof or shut on up, chucklefuck.
So… where’s the proof? Go ahead. Point it out where there’s factual evidence of what she’s claiming.
I’ll wait right here.
Go ahead and wait. I owe you nothing. I have no incentive to indulge bad faith discussion. Cheers!Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I’m leaving it up for posterity.
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for playing.
You know what, you have a valid point. I was also rude to you earlier and for that I apologize. So, in the interest of good faith discussion, I’ll provide a proper reply to one of your comments. One moments, please.
Much respect to you man. Thank you.