Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

You need to be careful who you brand as criminal. If you don't need to be convicted then anyone who does something someone else doesn't like can be branded as having committed "criminal acts" and then of course the whisper campaign starts and the person is forever branded as a criminal regardless of the facts.

That's exactly how and why many of if not most all of the so called "leaks" are started.

Classic smear campaign. Happens all of the time.

Originally Posted by Nightblade

And yet ...............

Well, my explanation for what constitutes a crime vs. a conviction was falsely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo" by countering with an explanation describing a miscariage of the law, but not because there was anything wrong with my explanation.

If you can just dismiss the rules by saying "Oh, well, what you are saying is mumbo jumbo because the rules are broken all the time..." Then why have any rules at all. Besides being a phoney argument, that's just not how society works. It is how society fails though.

Originally Posted by honedright

Well, my explanation for what constitutes a crime vs. a conviction was falsely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo" by countering with an explanation describing a miscariage of the law, but not because there was anything wrong with my explanation.

If you can just dismiss the rules by saying "Oh, well, what you are saying is mumbo jumbo because the rules are broken all the time..." Then why have any rules at all. Besides being a phoney argument, that's just not how society works. It is how society fails though.

If you want to take an intellectual exercise and expound on what constitutes a crime and criminal activity that's one thing. When you use that to brand someone absent some standard of evidence that's an entirely different matter.

My only point here is you make it way too easy to turn someone into a criminal.

Originally Posted by honedright

He just wasn't proven guilty. In a system that operates on a standard of presumption of innocence, everyone is innocent, until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests not with the accused, but with the accusers, so blame them. Apparently they didn't do their job very well. Or, maybe he really didn't do it... I don't know, I wasn't there.

As to Clinton, time will tell.

Yes we know. I would put my head in a guillotine and say he's guilty and I would think I'd come out with my head on. Every citizen has a right to his/her opinion. We will put it to the shave test in November. I know I am voting.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

If you want to take an intellectual exercise and expound on what constitutes a crime and criminal activity that's one thing. When you use that to brand someone absent some standard of evidence that's an entirely different matter.

My only point here is you make it way too easy to turn someone into a criminal.

It's not an intellectual exercise, really... the law, through various codes, plainly defines what is a crime and what are it's elements. It's generally any act of commission or omission in violation of any law that either commands or forbids it, and to which, upon conviction, are prescribed certain penalties including death, imprisonment, fine, removal from office, or disqualification to hold any position of trust, honor, or profit.

Notice that the crime, or criminal wrongdoing, occurs independent of conviction.

As far as branding absent a standard of evidence, well, as someone mentioned, O.J., he must not have engaged in any criminal activity since, apparently, there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. Or was there?

Clinton's case remains to be seen, but she wouldn't be under legal scrutiny unless she were reasonably suspected of at least some form of criminal wrongdoing.

But maybe Clinton has done nothing criminal, instead maybe she is just exceptionally incompetant.

Originally Posted by Hacker7

Every citizen has a right to his/her opinion.

Bahahahaha

Oh you silly silly man,,, You are only entitled to you opinion as long as it meets the Liberal Tolerance criteria otherwise it is Hate Speech...

Wait for it,,, here comes the old and tired "Fire in a Crowded Theater" comparison

As a completely impartial observer I've been fascinated by what's gone on in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns so far and have been following events closely. It's been interesting to see just how wrong the early predictions of Trump's popularity falling off have been - and I have to say that I felt kind of pleased that the party elders won't get the chance to stitch up his nomination at a contested convention.

Whatever you think of him, there is a similarity to the popular opinion - and shift to the right, in several European countries caused by decisions to allow mass immigration into Europe. The one area he does seem to have wrong is protectionism in terms of trade - the very big danger is that this leads to a world wide depression of demand and ends up with a worse situation than before.

Anyway, just reading the last few pages of posts around the subject of innocence until found guilty - people sure seem to be pre judging Trump.

Yes, I referred to Trump once before as the "flushing of the toilet". Trump, for whatever he ends up being, is the result of those on the right rejecting what the republican party has been for quite a while. Regardless if he wins or loses, he represents a major shift that is taking place on the right and, to some degree, the center. There is a call for a) a strong leader (not saying Trump will be one) and b) a president/party that has some nationalist tendencies. Trump's views on trade are simple. In his view we've been screwed by the deals we've made. I don't see him wanting to stop trade but I don't think he will want to do any deals give more than we get. He simply saw the current state of the republican party and heard what the people were saying. That's the closest we've come to a representative gov't in some time and I'm NOT Trump supporter. Meanwhile the left has been as giddy as a school girl because their party continues to march toward the left. So all is well on that side of the fence.

Originally Posted by UKRob

As a completely impartial observer I've been fascinated by what's gone on in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns so far and have been following events closely. It's been interesting to see just how wrong the early predictions of Trump's popularity falling off have been - and I have to say that I felt kind of pleased that the party elders won't get the chance to stitch up his nomination at a contested convention.

Whatever you think of him, there is a similarity to the popular opinion - and shift to the right, in several European countries caused by decisions to allow mass immigration into Europe. The one area he does seem to have wrong is protectionism in terms of trade - the very big danger is that this leads to a world wide depression of demand and ends up with a worse situation than before.

Anyway, just reading the last few pages of posts around the subject of innocence until found guilty - people sure seem to be pre judging Trump.

Everyone underestimated Trump. Even now most of the party elitist still do not get it. I truly believe that once the Trump train gets rolling there will be no stopping it. As crazy as it sounds Trump will be the next President. I just want everybody who said they were leaving the country to really leave the country.

Ill I'm saying is We got rules but sometimes the rules are not always followed and I think we all know that.That's just how the world of reality spins.......moving along on your left is our gift shop and cafeteria and .......