The hard and foundational truth, which you seem to struggle with, is that Trump is losing - and not by a little, by an enormous amount. And he is flailing, blaming the Republican Leadership, blaming the Democrats, blaming a global conspiracy, blaming the media, even blaming his own supporters.
Why is Trump losing? Is it his hair? My guess is the reason he is losing is that the message is not compelling or believable. YOU aren't believable. The shills employed to trumpet Trump on./ are not believable.
So nobody who is against Trump and his plan to murder 100s of thousands of Syrians by nuking them, and his plan for nuclear proliferation which will place nuclear weapons into the hands of whoever Trump thinks will deliver him some personal benefit, none of those people need to justify a single thing to you.
You need to convince us how having HRC as President would be worse than the outcomes of the nuclear strike planned by Trump. If you can't make a compelling argument, she will win. You are not, at the moment, making a compelling argument. Your failure has nothing to do with me.
No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.
And in your view, I should illustrate my observation that Trump and Trump supporters say ridiculous, paranoid things without evidence, but I can't illustrate that observation by reference to the ridiculous, paranoid things that Trump and Trump supporters say?
If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent.
Nobody needs an excuse to say she is innocent, a bunch of desperate losers shouting out random things on the internet is not a criminal case, and she has to answer squat to your allegations of demonism and lizard skin and murder and whatever.
So let's have a look here:
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation [clintonfoundation.org] the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Does Donald Trump support terrorism?
You'd agree that if Donald Trump or Donald Trump's foundations received money from the Saudi's, that Donald Trump must also, by definition, support terrorism?
I don't need to read it, I'm not talking about the presumption of innocence.
That's what this conversation is about - so you are.
You've missed the point again. I'm talking about being able to break the law, in full knowledge of it, and get away with it. The hypothetical person is still a criminal (they have mens rea and actus reus). You don't like it? Tough titties. (btw I don't like the term criminal, one commits "criminal behavior")
Who cares about hypotheticals? It's your job to prove that she did those things, and you are failing. You don't get to declare her guilty. Otherwise, I can call you a pedophile, and you are assumed to be under suspicion until you can prove you are not.
Is that the way you WANT the law to work?
"That's not for you to determine."
Moot point. It isn't for you to determine either.
I'm not trying to determine anything. This is not a toss up argument. You claim she committed those crimes. You prove it, prosecute the case: otherwise, you fail.
Your answer to "shit you made up (or someone you are quoting)" was "No."
You claim that I made up those statements. I did not, I quoted a Trump supporter. This is what I just said. Not sure why we keep returning to this? It seems you are trying to counter my argument that those are things that Trump supporters say by saying that I shouldn't quote Trump supporters. Who should I be quoting as examples of the things that Trump supporters say?
Do you think demons and lizard persons from zorg are real?
Let's go over this again. I am presenting the things that Trump supporters say as evidence that they say a range of delusional things, and expect us to believe us on the strength of that. The guys claiming that Hillary is a demon is motivated by a desire to have us believe him in much the same way as the OP who wants us to believe that HRC is a criminal. Is the fact that they (you) , want us to believe these things sufficient evidence? It is not regardless of the content of the claim.
Provide evidence.
It does not imply that none of them are true because there is no agreed upon definition of demon, while the crimes that she supposedly committed, even if not that clear to non jurists, have hints of a definition (e.g. we know that mishandling secret information is a crime, even if we don't know exactly what crime; we instinctively think that misleading the government to the point were some people are killed is probably a crime, even if we don't know what crime that is).
The fact is, if you don't know what the crime is that she supposedly committed, how will you convince me that she committed a crime? My basic criterion is evidence. How can you have evidence for a crime without knowing what the crime is? Sounds suspiciously like a witch hunt to me.
In my first post I suggested the congress hearings about Benghazi on youtube, that's one place were you can find evidence, but I'm not gonna search them for you.
Too bad. That's insufficient evidence for me to believe you. You need to make a compelling argument.
Since you are not talking only about Syria, but about calling her a criminal, she mishandled secret information.
So you say. Are you a judge, or jury of one, in a properly constituted court proceeding?
There is uncontested evidence of that, but in an unprecedented case of kindness from the DOJ, "intent to harm" became a necessity, only in her case. There is another criminal that took a photo of a submarine and posted online when everybody was posting their workspaces and he went to jail, even though there was no harm or intent to harm.
What you mean is, the prosecutor decide they had insufficient evidence to be able to proceed without reasonable doubt becoming an issue, and decline to tkae the matter to court. Which in no way proves guilt on her part.
You shouldn't expect people to always have a list of links ready for you, or to be repeating the evidence over and over again every time they call her a criminal.
If you cannot mount a compelling case to convince an independent third party (such as myself) let alone a judge or jury, then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.
You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.
Read the context. The OP is claiming that Hillary committed a crime, that makes innocence a matter of law, not morality. The OP claimed that she could be tried by the ballot box, I generously embraced that concept. My generosity doesn't imply a misunderstanding of the way the law works.
See this article.. Educate yourself. The presumption of innocence is a human right that is enshrined in Common Law, it is enshrined also in the constitution. You don't like the presumption of innocence? Tough titties, I'm afraid.
Since you missed my point I'll describe it another way. Let's say person A breaks criminal law X. They know they broke law X but nobody else does. They are guilty of breaking criminal law. They are a "criminal" yet they haven't been convicted of a crime. It's disingenuous to suggest that the actual murderer or rapist or whatever that doesn't get caught is not a criminal on account of not being caught. You can be a criminal without being a convicted criminal.
In the eyes of the Law such a person is innocent until proven guilty. Without the law, the concept of breaking the law has no meaning. You don't like it? Tough titties.
If you were to say she's not guilty because it hasn't been proven in a court of law I'd say you can't say one way or another. You don't know if she's guilty or not precisely because she hasn't been tried. She knows though.
I say that she is innocent until her accusers prove her guilt. I say that with the full force of law and 1500 years of precedent, a concept that is foundational and core to Western civilisation at my back. Until they prove their case, their words have no effect.
They are serious allegations and she should be tried in court.
Of course you can. That's reality. You make compromises on priorities in a representative political structure.
Basically, you are suggested HRC should negotiate with the Trump supporters so that they stop saying that she is witch, or a demon, or a criminal, or whatever, In other words, you are talking about blackmail, albeit blackmail in which the blackmailing party has no actual information that might damage her reputation.
Blackmail is a crime. Why should the President negotiate with criminals?
People are going to vote for her despite what they believe and some another way because of what they believe. This has absolutely nothing to do with "innocence" (which is a moral concept).
In other words, your argument is with the OP who suggested that HRC be tried via the ballot box (because they were not confident of being able to mount a legal case). I'm happy to insist on their accusations meeting the bar for an actual conviction, if that is what you prefer.
You didn't make it up OR quote someone? Your link shows that you quoted someone on this BS.
Sounds like you are trying to have a different conversation. To quote myself:
I can't keep with the various theories - she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies, she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria. Just *insert random theory here* I guess.
There is no evident difference between each of these conspiracy theories. Asking us to believe one is the same as asking us to believe any of the others. Hope that makes the point clear.
Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.
Which would imply that none of them are true. Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence) is the same as asserting that she is a demon.
The OP said that rather than passing judgement in a court of law, we'll allow the judgement of the ballot box instead. So if Hillary wins the ballot, she is innocent of all the allegations.
She's a (soon to be convicted) felon when the public gets fed up with all the "get out of jail free" cards her corrupt crony establishment friends keep giving her.
Soon, she'll be elected as President of the United States by a public whose eyes are open to the fact that everything that is said in favour of the alternative is just conspiracy theory.
Let's suppose that he answers "no" and "none". It does not change his argument or the evidence against her.
His role (and yours) is to prove it. You have the burden of proof. That's the way the law works. There will be no witch hunting, there will be no smearing someone because you don't like her. The law demands that the prosecutor prove the case. Only the judge or jury can declare someone guilty , and there has been no trial.
Please note: you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be a "criminal". You only have to break criminal law to be guilty of criminal behavior.
Please note: to be a criminal, yo need to be convicted of a crime. You can be accused of a crime, but the correct language is alleged - it's alleged that Hillary Clinton is a demon. That word alleged is there to indicate that the prosecution has the burden of proof.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire narrative of the Trump campaign is just a fantasy. A quick look at who advises Trump is instructive
Why is Trump losing? Is it his hair? My guess is the reason he is losing is that the message is not compelling or believable. YOU aren't believable. The shills employed to trumpet Trump on ./ are not believable.
So nobody who is against Trump and his plan to murder 100s of thousands of Syrians by nuking them, and his plan for nuclear proliferation which will place nuclear weapons into the hands of whoever Trump thinks will deliver him some personal benefit, none of those people need to justify a single thing to you.
You need to convince us how having HRC as President would be worse than the outcomes of the nuclear strike planned by Trump. If you can't make a compelling argument, she will win. You are not, at the moment, making a compelling argument. Your failure has nothing to do with me.
Sounds on the basis of that that experts in the field think differently to the trumpkenshrillskins. No surprise there.
OP: The truth is, she's a lying sack of shit criminal.
Me: Are you a judge? What's your role in the criminal justice system?
You: We all judge at the ballot box.
Any questions?
Innocence was a moral concept before it ever became a legal one. What do you think the legal system was based upon in the first place?
Lot's of anthropologists would argue otherwise - and in any case, it's irrelevant because we don't live in prehistory, we live now.
Are you angling towards an argument that says that Trump is morally superior to HRC? Do you think that will go well?
We all judge at the ballot box.
You deny that you uttered those words? What happened? Did Lizard Demon Hillary use her spiritual alien technology to hack your ./ account?
No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.
And in your view, I should illustrate my observation that Trump and Trump supporters say ridiculous, paranoid things without evidence, but I can't illustrate that observation by reference to the ridiculous, paranoid things that Trump and Trump supporters say?
If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent.
Nobody needs an excuse to say she is innocent, a bunch of desperate losers shouting out random things on the internet is not a criminal case, and she has to answer squat to your allegations of demonism and lizard skin and murder and whatever. So let's have a look here:
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation [clintonfoundation.org] the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Does Donald Trump support terrorism?
You'd agree that if Donald Trump or Donald Trump's foundations received money from the Saudi's, that Donald Trump must also, by definition, support terrorism?
Confirmation bias toward reality, yes.
I don't need to read it, I'm not talking about the presumption of innocence.
That's what this conversation is about - so you are.
You've missed the point again. I'm talking about being able to break the law, in full knowledge of it, and get away with it. The hypothetical person is still a criminal (they have mens rea and actus reus). You don't like it? Tough titties. (btw I don't like the term criminal, one commits "criminal behavior")
Who cares about hypotheticals? It's your job to prove that she did those things, and you are failing. You don't get to declare her guilty. Otherwise, I can call you a pedophile, and you are assumed to be under suspicion until you can prove you are not.
Is that the way you WANT the law to work?
"That's not for you to determine."
Moot point. It isn't for you to determine either.
I'm not trying to determine anything. This is not a toss up argument. You claim she committed those crimes. You prove it, prosecute the case: otherwise, you fail.
Your answer to "shit you made up (or someone you are quoting)" was "No."
You claim that I made up those statements. I did not, I quoted a Trump supporter. This is what I just said. Not sure why we keep returning to this? It seems you are trying to counter my argument that those are things that Trump supporters say by saying that I shouldn't quote Trump supporters. Who should I be quoting as examples of the things that Trump supporters say?
Do you think demons and lizard persons from zorg are real?
Let's go over this again. I am presenting the things that Trump supporters say as evidence that they say a range of delusional things, and expect us to believe us on the strength of that. The guys claiming that Hillary is a demon is motivated by a desire to have us believe him in much the same way as the OP who wants us to believe that HRC is a criminal. Is the fact that they (you) , want us to believe these things sufficient evidence? It is not regardless of the content of the claim.
Provide evidence.
It does not imply that none of them are true because there is no agreed upon definition of demon, while the crimes that she supposedly committed, even if not that clear to non jurists, have hints of a definition (e.g. we know that mishandling secret information is a crime, even if we don't know exactly what crime; we instinctively think that misleading the government to the point were some people are killed is probably a crime, even if we don't know what crime that is).
The fact is, if you don't know what the crime is that she supposedly committed, how will you convince me that she committed a crime? My basic criterion is evidence. How can you have evidence for a crime without knowing what the crime is? Sounds suspiciously like a witch hunt to me.
In my first post I suggested the congress hearings about Benghazi on youtube, that's one place were you can find evidence, but I'm not gonna search them for you.
Too bad. That's insufficient evidence for me to believe you. You need to make a compelling argument.
Since you are not talking only about Syria, but about calling her a criminal, she mishandled secret information.
So you say. Are you a judge, or jury of one, in a properly constituted court proceeding?
There is uncontested evidence of that, but in an unprecedented case of kindness from the DOJ, "intent to harm" became a necessity, only in her case. There is another criminal that took a photo of a submarine and posted online when everybody was posting their workspaces and he went to jail, even though there was no harm or intent to harm.
What you mean is, the prosecutor decide they had insufficient evidence to be able to proceed without reasonable doubt becoming an issue, and decline to tkae the matter to court. Which in no way proves guilt on her part.
You shouldn't expect people to always have a list of links ready for you, or to be repeating the evidence over and over again every time they call her a criminal.
If you cannot mount a compelling case to convince an independent third party (such as myself) let alone a judge or jury, then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.
Read the context. The OP is claiming that Hillary committed a crime, that makes innocence a matter of law, not morality. The OP claimed that she could be tried by the ballot box, I generously embraced that concept. My generosity doesn't imply a misunderstanding of the way the law works.
The evidence has been outlined multiple times in this thread. I'm sure you can find it.
I've asked repeatedly for the evidence - none has been forthcoming. Seems self-evident that there is none.
I'm not a prosecutor. I'm betting you aren't either. So you have no more authority than I do in that regard.
I don't need any authority, because she is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you.
But I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are yours.
Your opinion has no effect on the force of law. In fact, it carries no weight whatsoever. Why should we care about your opinion?
Since you missed my point I'll describe it another way. Let's say person A breaks criminal law X. They know they broke law X but nobody else does. They are guilty of breaking criminal law. They are a "criminal" yet they haven't been convicted of a crime. It's disingenuous to suggest that the actual murderer or rapist or whatever that doesn't get caught is not a criminal on account of not being caught. You can be a criminal without being a convicted criminal.
In the eyes of the Law such a person is innocent until proven guilty. Without the law, the concept of breaking the law has no meaning. You don't like it? Tough titties.
If you were to say she's not guilty because it hasn't been proven in a court of law I'd say you can't say one way or another. You don't know if she's guilty or not precisely because she hasn't been tried. She knows though.
I say that she is innocent until her accusers prove her guilt. I say that with the full force of law and 1500 years of precedent, a concept that is foundational and core to Western civilisation at my back. Until they prove their case, their words have no effect.
They are serious allegations and she should be tried in court.
That's not for you to determine.
Of course you can. That's reality. You make compromises on priorities in a representative political structure.
Basically, you are suggested HRC should negotiate with the Trump supporters so that they stop saying that she is witch, or a demon, or a criminal, or whatever, In other words, you are talking about blackmail, albeit blackmail in which the blackmailing party has no actual information that might damage her reputation.
Blackmail is a crime. Why should the President negotiate with criminals?
People are going to vote for her despite what they believe and some another way because of what they believe. This has absolutely nothing to do with "innocence" (which is a moral concept).
In other words, your argument is with the OP who suggested that HRC be tried via the ballot box (because they were not confident of being able to mount a legal case). I'm happy to insist on their accusations meeting the bar for an actual conviction, if that is what you prefer.
You didn't make it up OR quote someone? Your link shows that you quoted someone on this BS.
Sounds like you are trying to have a different conversation. To quote myself:
I can't keep with the various theories - she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies, she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria. Just *insert random theory here* I guess. There is no evident difference between each of these conspiracy theories. Asking us to believe one is the same as asking us to believe any of the others. Hope that makes the point clear.
Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.
Which would imply that none of them are true. Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence) is the same as asserting that she is a demon.
What's Trump's view on that?
Can't have it both ways.
Since when do you need to be a judge or jury to make the determination that someone has lied, or broken the law.
Since A.D 550 or so
We all judge at the ballot box.
Ok then.
We all know she's lied.
Apparently not, otherwise she would not be winning by a significant margin.
MMmm. And Trump is an evil dog with a strong and wealthy corporate lobby behind him. So that bit cancels out: what's next?
She's a (soon to be convicted) felon when the public gets fed up with all the "get out of jail free" cards her corrupt crony establishment friends keep giving her.
Soon, she'll be elected as President of the United States by a public whose eyes are open to the fact that everything that is said in favour of the alternative is just conspiracy theory.
Let's suppose that he answers "no" and "none". It does not change his argument or the evidence against her.
His role (and yours) is to prove it. You have the burden of proof. That's the way the law works. There will be no witch hunting, there will be no smearing someone because you don't like her. The law demands that the prosecutor prove the case. Only the judge or jury can declare someone guilty , and there has been no trial.
Please note: you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be a "criminal". You only have to break criminal law to be guilty of criminal behavior.
Please note: to be a criminal, yo need to be convicted of a crime. You can be accused of a crime, but the correct language is alleged - it's alleged that Hillary Clinton is a demon. That word alleged is there to indicate that the prosecution has the burden of proof.
she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies
Shit you made up (or someone you are quoting).
No. Should I go on?
No, and considering the nature of the allegations,
That she is a demon, or that she is from the plant Zorg?
and the evidence against her,
I'll ask again: where is this evidence?
she should be tried in court. If she has done nothing wrong then she'll be proven not guilty.
That's what you say. Are you a prosecutor with jurisdiction over these areas of law?
Yes, he's a judge
What's his name?