The double standard

[PeacefulPartier]

I want to address the myth of "innocent until proven guilty." ...

Yeah, me too. "Innocent until proven guilty" has only one valid meaning. In court, the burden of proof of a charge is up to the state. That is, it is the state's responsibility to proven the defendant guilty, not the defendant's responsibility to prove his/her innocence. Thus, as a legal construct, the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty." Outside that limited application, and other administrative-type procedures that adopt court-like standards, it has no validity. Actually, even in court, it only applies to who has to prove what, because the prosecutors certainly don't consider the defendant innocent. Neither do the cops that caught him. They are all quite convinced s/he is guilty or they wouldn't have brought them to trial.

Innocent until proven guilty only has to be applied by the state, but it isn't a bad premise to apply to life. A lot of bad can come from assuming someone is guilty.

[PeacefulPartier]

How about this double standard? During the Republican nomination contest a couple years ago, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney spoke very badly of trump; Ted even got booed at the GOP convention for disparaging trump. But now all those same guys except for an honorable mention for Romney, who seems to have found some vestige of his honor and ethics, defend trump virtually no matter what he does. I find it quite remarkable that grown men like these could change their opinions on ethics and morals and honesty so completely, especially since I myself have had the same political views I have now for several decades. I cannot imagine changing my views just for the sake of winning one election. I have never been a Republican or a Democrat, I have always hated Nixon and still do. I have always thought baby Bush was a dumbass and still do. I always admired Eisenhower and still do.

As for this supposed double standard with regard to Biden and the Ukraine business, it was not just Biden pushing for the removal of the Ukrainian prosecutor; virtually the entire EU was pushing for this as well. If Biden or his son did anything illegal they should be prosecuted for it. But no charges have been brought; only spurious conspiracy type allegations with no basis in fact. There is no double standard there. Biden nor his son never operated a scam university or a scam charity, neither of them tell lies on a daily basis, and neither of them devote virtually all their time to efforts to polarize the citizens of this country against each other.

There is not a double standard in the trump era; there is no standard at all. It's like Mitt said a couple years ago; "Donald Trump is a fake, a phony, a con man." He was right.

Every single primary has that exact same scenario. Is Bernie a hypocrite for supporting Clinton? Will any of the 20 something Dems be hypocrites for supporting their eventual nominee? Of course Republicans took shots at the outsider in their primary. How else would they separate themselves? But, as in every single election ever, they came together after the primary, with the exception of the former Gov of Mass. He's special. Well, he supported Trump when he needed to win an election. But now he's back to being special again.

Nah, it's not exactly the same; not even close. Nobody has been such a juvenile name calling petty moron like trump has been. His latest tweet up there right now says "I am draining the swamp." Fucking hilarious. He is a pathological liar and I believe he's actually quite insane. He says things that are demonstrably false, like how he says billions of dollars are coming into the US Treasury from China because of his tariffs. And a lot of people actually believe this. No Democrat has ever been so far removed from reality and truth. Of course the eventual party nominee ultimately gets the support of the rest of the party; that's just how the system works. Never have there been the divisions with Dems like there have been with trump and the GOP. Never have Democrats in numbers decided to not run for re election because of the way the incumbent president of their party acts like a petulant child. No, it's not the same. If you can't see that, you are refusing to face reality.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of calling Trump "a juvenile name calling petty moron" and then following that up with "He is a pathological liar and I believe he's actually quite insane."?

I've only been here a short time, but I have to say I'm not impressed with the lack of imagination and debate from the Blue Ridge faithful. But I'm not surprised. Do you know why people lie me voted for Trump? Because we like watching him turn the likes of everyone here, into crying, wheezing, panic stricken little kids. Honestly, it has been very entertaining to watch y'all get what you've been dishing out. Decades of baseless insults from the left like racist, sexist, and so on have left us sick and tired of dealing with the left. Now, the left is imploding with an impeachment hearing that will undoubtedly end badly for them and guarantee a landslide victory for Trump. So, bash away. Believe all these fair tales the Pelosi's of DC tell you. But I'd hate to be in your shoes when it all comes tumbling down.

[billy.pilgrim]

Are you saying that trump doesn't lie about pretty much everything, because that's actually what is happening.

A sad and sorry state for the president.

[Vrede too]

I want to address the myth of "innocent until proven guilty." ...

Yeah, me too. "Innocent until proven guilty" has only one valid meaning. In court, the burden of proof of a charge is up to the state. That is, it is the state's responsibility to proven the defendant guilty, not the defendant's responsibility to prove his/her innocence. Thus, as a legal construct, the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty." Outside that limited application, and other administrative-type procedures that adopt court-like standards, it has no validity. Actually, even in court, it only applies to who has to prove what, because the prosecutors certainly don't consider the defendant innocent. Neither do the cops that caught him. They are all quite convinced s/he is guilty or they wouldn't have brought them to trial.

It's often a refuge for those inconvenienced by the obvious but who are too wussy to admit it. There should be a very high burden of proof for criminal convictions, but that's not how impeachments or elections work. We normal people, meaning those not hopelessly enthralled with POSPOTUS, are perfectly able to see the truth and are not wimps about saying so.

[neoplacebo]

How about this double standard? During the Republican nomination contest a couple years ago, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney spoke very badly of trump; Ted even got booed at the GOP convention for disparaging trump. But now all those same guys except for an honorable mention for Romney, who seems to have found some vestige of his honor and ethics, defend trump virtually no matter what he does. I find it quite remarkable that grown men like these could change their opinions on ethics and morals and honesty so completely, especially since I myself have had the same political views I have now for several decades. I cannot imagine changing my views just for the sake of winning one election. I have never been a Republican or a Democrat, I have always hated Nixon and still do. I have always thought baby Bush was a dumbass and still do. I always admired Eisenhower and still do.

As for this supposed double standard with regard to Biden and the Ukraine business, it was not just Biden pushing for the removal of the Ukrainian prosecutor; virtually the entire EU was pushing for this as well. If Biden or his son did anything illegal they should be prosecuted for it. But no charges have been brought; only spurious conspiracy type allegations with no basis in fact. There is no double standard there. Biden nor his son never operated a scam university or a scam charity, neither of them tell lies on a daily basis, and neither of them devote virtually all their time to efforts to polarize the citizens of this country against each other.

There is not a double standard in the trump era; there is no standard at all. It's like Mitt said a couple years ago; "Donald Trump is a fake, a phony, a con man." He was right.

Every single primary has that exact same scenario. Is Bernie a hypocrite for supporting Clinton? Will any of the 20 something Dems be hypocrites for supporting their eventual nominee? Of course Republicans took shots at the outsider in their primary. How else would they separate themselves? But, as in every single election ever, they came together after the primary, with the exception of the former Gov of Mass. He's special. Well, he supported Trump when he needed to win an election. But now he's back to being special again.

Nah, it's not exactly the same; not even close. Nobody has been such a juvenile name calling petty moron like trump has been. His latest tweet up there right now says "I am draining the swamp." Fucking hilarious. He is a pathological liar and I believe he's actually quite insane. He says things that are demonstrably false, like how he says billions of dollars are coming into the US Treasury from China because of his tariffs. And a lot of people actually believe this. No Democrat has ever been so far removed from reality and truth. Of course the eventual party nominee ultimately gets the support of the rest of the party; that's just how the system works. Never have there been the divisions with Dems like there have been with trump and the GOP. Never have Democrats in numbers decided to not run for re election because of the way the incumbent president of their party acts like a petulant child. No, it's not the same. If you can't see that, you are refusing to face reality.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of calling Trump "a juvenile name calling petty moron" and then following that up with "He is a pathological liar and I believe he's actually quite insane."?

I've only been here a short time, but I have to say I'm not impressed with the lack of imagination and debate from the Blue Ridge faithful. But I'm not surprised. Do you know why people lie me voted for Trump? Because we like watching him turn the likes of everyone here, into crying, wheezing, panic stricken little kids. Honestly, it has been very entertaining to watch y'all get what you've been dishing out. Decades of baseless insults from the left like racist, sexist, and so on have left us sick and tired of dealing with the left. Now, the left is imploding with an impeachment hearing that will undoubtedly end badly for them and guarantee a landslide victory for Trump. So, bash away. Believe all these fair tales the Pelosi's of DC tell you. But I'd hate to be in your shoes when it all comes tumbling down.

No, I do not see any hypocrisy in calling trump a juvenile name calling petty moron. Give me an example of any Democrat politician who has continually engaged in blatant lying and junior high school type name calling ("Lyin' Ted" "Little Marco" Pocahontas" "Sleepy Joe" "Adam Schitt") and I no doubt would see such hypocrisy. But you can't do that because there is no equivalent that would serve to even create any hypocrisy in the matter. As for trump being insane, I am not a medical professional but have seen more than a few psychologists and psychiatrists write articles about this and reference the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, a non partisan medical reference text that defines the symptoms of various mental health conditions) to support their views of him. And they all state the caveat that no definitive diagnosis can be arrived at without actually examining the patient....another honest statement to indicate their professional objectivity.

As for your assertion that trump "turns the likes of us into crying, wheezing, panic stricken little kids," well, I don't put myself in that pile. I just think trump is pathetically funny and dangerous stupid. I am not by any means the only one who shares this opinion. He is a joke on the world stage, baby Bush described his Inauguration speech as "some weird shit" and he embarrasses himself on a daily basis with his lack of knowledge of his native language with his twitter account. You say he will be re elected by a landslide; I say it's more likely he will resign so he won't lose the lifetime pension and benefits of having been president. If the GOP Senate has any strategic thinkers, they will convince him to do this as well, since it will preclude them from having to vote to remove him from office. If he resigns, GOP Senators won't have to live the rest of their lives with the shame of not voting to remove him and he will get his money. This looks to me to be the more likely scenario instead of a landslide election victory. Either way, I won't be wheezing or crying about it, though; more like laughing and shaking my head.

[neoplacebo]

I want to address the myth of "innocent until proven guilty." ...

Yeah, me too. "Innocent until proven guilty" has only one valid meaning. In court, the burden of proof of a charge is up to the state. That is, it is the state's responsibility to proven the defendant guilty, not the defendant's responsibility to prove his/her innocence. Thus, as a legal construct, the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty." Outside that limited application, and other administrative-type procedures that adopt court-like standards, it has no validity. Actually, even in court, it only applies to who has to prove what, because the prosecutors certainly don't consider the defendant innocent. Neither do the cops that caught him. They are all quite convinced s/he is guilty or they wouldn't have brought them to trial.

Innocent until proven guilty only has to be applied by the state, but it isn't a bad premise to apply to life. A lot of bad can come from assuming someone is guilty.

Fair enough, but that's not what we have here. Both Rudy and trump have admitted on video that they engaged in the activity they're accused of, namely, attempting to influence a foreign government to meddle in US national political affairs. Nothing else is needed to establish that fact; they've both admitted to it. Charles Manson was convicted of murder and conspiracy but he never actually killed anybody; he just suggested that others do this, and they did. This happened during the Nixon "law and order" days a few years before Nixon and his Nazi cohorts began engaging in their own criminal conspiracy.

[neoplacebo]

I want to address the myth of "innocent until proven guilty." ...

Yeah, me too. "Innocent until proven guilty" has only one valid meaning. In court, the burden of proof of a charge is up to the state. That is, it is the state's responsibility to proven the defendant guilty, not the defendant's responsibility to prove his/her innocence. Thus, as a legal construct, the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty." Outside that limited application, and other administrative-type procedures that adopt court-like standards, it has no validity. Actually, even in court, it only applies to who has to prove what, because the prosecutors certainly don't consider the defendant innocent. Neither do the cops that caught him. They are all quite convinced s/he is guilty or they wouldn't have brought them to trial.

It's often a refuge for those inconvenienced by the obvious but who are too wussy to admit it. There should be a very high burden of proof for criminal convictions, but that's not how impeachments or elections work. We normal people, meaning those not hopelessly enthralled with POSPOTUS, are perfectly able to see the truth and are not wimps about saying so.

Absolutely goddamn right; never get out of the boat. That's the mantra of the cult.....never get out of the boat no matter what. Guilt in a criminal trial is supposed to be established "beyond a reasonable doubt." What the trump cult is afflicted with is an acute and terminal case of "unreasonable doubt" that their cult leader could possibly be guilty of virtually anything, despite his and Rudy's confession of guilt on video and in print with regard to encouraging a foreign government to interfere in American internal affairs. Even more proof of guilt is shown by trump's statement the other day that the US government does this all the time (meddle in the internal affairs of other countries). He has, in effect, confessed in two different ways. Next case.

[Vrede too]

Make no mistake, you are not in any way an intellectual challenge to us. You have failed on every test of facts, logic, patriotism and integrity. We’re just playing with you for our own entertainment, worm, and because it’s funny that you’re so masochistic as to keep coming back for more abuse.

Ummm, “crying, wheezing, panic stricken little kids” is you Trumpettes and your idol since getting crushed in Nov. 2018. Hence your desperation, your delusions of future victory, and traitor 45SHOLE’s soliciting foreign interference in the election.

“baseless insults from the left like racist, sexist”? Once again the question arises whether you are this stupid, cowardly or dishonest.

POSPOTUS admits to being a sexual assaulter, praised Epstein’s fondness for “young”, admits to knowing what Weinstein was doing and staying silent, lusts after his own daughter, and peeped on undressed mid-teen pageant girls. You defend a proven perv.

Then, there’s:

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019
Trump has repeatedly claimed he’s “the least racist person.” His history suggests otherwise.

You have picked your racist and sexist team, don’t be so fake outraged because we’ve noticed and called you out on it. There’s a pattern here, you whine incessantly about insults that are 100% accurate. What a snowflake!

[Vrede too]

Not exactly. This is more like the accused saying he's innocent and providing proof of that innocence. You do believe in innocent until proven guilty, don't you?

Except that's not what happened.

Prove me wrong.

I believe the information you're looking for is readily available on the internet. You should check it out sometime.
The word is it's here to stay.

Just one of thousands of sources:

Whistleblower alleges Trump abused power to solicit foreign interference

... Highlights: The whistleblower breaks down the alleged actions — which they said they believe "pose risks to the U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. government's efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections" — into 4 sections.

1. The July 25 presidential phone call: Multiple White House officials told the whistleblower that they were "deeply disturbed" by what transpired in the phone call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump, in which Trump "sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid."

2. Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call: The whistleblower said that in the days after the call, White House officials "intervened to 'lock down' all records of the call, especially the word-for-word transcript." White House lawyers directed officials to load the electronic transcript onto a separate system that is generally used to handle classified information, despite there being no national security-sensitive material on the phone call.

A footnote states that this was not the first time that the Trump administration had used the system "for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive — rather than national security sensitive — information."

3. Ongoing concerns: A day after the call, the whistleblower said that U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland met with Ukrainian officials and provided them with advice on how to "navigate" Trump's demands. Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani also traveled to Madrid to meet with a Zelensky adviser and reached out to several other Ukrainian officials as a "direct follow-up" to the call.

4. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call: In the most extensive section of the complaint, the whistleblower details how Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko made a series of corruption allegations in March 2019 against U.S. officials, including Joe Biden. The allegations were followed by news that Giuliani met on two occasions with Lutsenko and planned to travel to Ukraine in May to pursue investigations related to Trump's 2020 reelection bid.

Multiple U.S. officials told the whistleblower that they were "deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani's circumvention of national security decisionmaking processes."

Multiple U.S. officials also told the whistleblower that Ukrainian leadership was "led to believe" that a phone call or meeting between Trump and Zelensky would depend on whether Zelensky showed a willingness to "play ball" on the issues aired by Lutsenko and Giuliani.

In mid-July, the whistleblower learned that Trump had directed the Office of Management and Budget to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. OMB officials were unaware of a policy rationale.

Worth noting: The whistleblower didn't directly witness the events, but said the witness accounts were accurate "because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another."

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson also found the complaint to be credible.

Read the full complaint: ...

PP proved wrong. S/he'll never have the spine to admit it or even look. It's much easier to swallow Tucker Carlson's lies about what's there in black and white for anyone to see.

No reason to take my word for it or that of the link. There's also:

Hundreds of ex-national security officials support impeachment inquiry into Trump

More than 300 former national security officials have come out in support of an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, arguing the President's actions in regard to Ukraine are a "profound national security concern."

"President Trump appears to have leveraged the authority and resources of the highest office in the land to invite additional foreign interference into our democratic processes," a statement signed by the officials and dated Friday reads. "That would constitute an unconscionable abuse of power."

... Former officials of the intelligence community, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Security Council staff are among the signees.

... "If we fail to speak up -- and act -- now our foreign policy and national security will officially be on offer to those who can most effectively fulfill the President's personal prerogatives," the former officials said in their statement.

"We do not wish to prejudge the totality of the facts or Congress' deliberative process," they said, adding, "At the same time, there is no escaping that what we already know is serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings."

Now cower and deflect, maybe even shriek about the "deep state" and cite QAnon, child. It's what you America-hating Trumpettes ALWAYS do.

[Vrede too]

... PP proved wrong. S/he'll never have the spine to admit it or even look. It's much easier to swallow Tucker Carlson's lies about what's there in black and white for anyone to see....

Then, there's the Liar in Chief that PP worships:

'I Approved This Message': Trump Releases 2020 Campaign Ad With Completely 'Fabricated' Lie About Biden
"It's strange to see my journalism twisted, perverted, and turned into lies and poisonous propaganda by Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and their enablers," explains journalist James Risen. "But that's what has happened to a news story I wrote four years ago."

...

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

I AM DRAINING THE SWAMP!

... As is true of many falsehoods put forth by Trump, however, the false and misleading claims against Biden and his son are based on unfounded conspiracy theories circulating within the right-wing echo chamber. And the president's insistence on spreading them—given all the available documentation and reporting—appears like willful deceit on the part of his campaign....

But the major issue with the ad? It's entire premise is a big—and very easily discredited—lie. And while not surprising, the new ad, especially as it comes on the heals of House Democrats' announcement of a formal impeachment inquiry into the president earlier this week, offers a glimpse of how Trump will run his 2020 campaign – whether its against Biden or any other candidate.

Chris Murphy Verified account
@ChrisMurphyCT
U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

The allegation in this ad is made up. Fabricated.

The prosecutor Biden wanted fired WAS NOT investigating Burisma (the firm Hunter was on the board of) and EVERYONE wanted the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and incompetent.

... As Risen puts it, "when Joe Biden went to Ukraine, he was not trying to protect his son — quite the reverse." And continued:

The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not lessen — the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine....

The facts are quite clear, concluded Risen in his column this week. "Biden did threaten to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless Shokin was ousted," he explained. "But that was because Shokin had blocked serious anti-corruption investigations, not because he was investigating Burisma."

Biden's fellow Democrat Beto O'Rourke, also seeking the party's presidential nomination, said Trump's false attack ad must be identified and condemned by its proper name.

"Trump's ad about Joe Biden is a disgrace," tweeted O'Rourke. "Every one of us needs to call this exactly what it is: propaganda. Doing anything less is playing right into his hands."

My question is why PP insists on humiliating her/himself by spreading lies when we all know they're lies and have proved it. Masochism? Martyr delusions? Just too stupid to know better? Other guesses?

[billy.pilgrim]

He could be a liberal FriendoFred type out to make the MAGAts look like idiots, but that's a lot like standing in the rain to prove that rain is wet.



No matter what else happens, I'll never get over what a fool trump looked after claiming he could commit murder in front of the world and it wouldn't make a difference to his followers. There's no way Americans are that shallow and stupid. I was wrong.

[PeacefulPartier]

How about this double standard? During the Republican nomination contest a couple years ago, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Mitt Romney spoke very badly of trump; Ted even got booed at the GOP convention for disparaging trump. But now all those same guys except for an honorable mention for Romney, who seems to have found some vestige of his honor and ethics, defend trump virtually no matter what he does. I find it quite remarkable that grown men like these could change their opinions on ethics and morals and honesty so completely, especially since I myself have had the same political views I have now for several decades. I cannot imagine changing my views just for the sake of winning one election. I have never been a Republican or a Democrat, I have always hated Nixon and still do. I have always thought baby Bush was a dumbass and still do. I always admired Eisenhower and still do.

As for this supposed double standard with regard to Biden and the Ukraine business, it was not just Biden pushing for the removal of the Ukrainian prosecutor; virtually the entire EU was pushing for this as well. If Biden or his son did anything illegal they should be prosecuted for it. But no charges have been brought; only spurious conspiracy type allegations with no basis in fact. There is no double standard there. Biden nor his son never operated a scam university or a scam charity, neither of them tell lies on a daily basis, and neither of them devote virtually all their time to efforts to polarize the citizens of this country against each other.

There is not a double standard in the trump era; there is no standard at all. It's like Mitt said a couple years ago; "Donald Trump is a fake, a phony, a con man." He was right.

Every single primary has that exact same scenario. Is Bernie a hypocrite for supporting Clinton? Will any of the 20 something Dems be hypocrites for supporting their eventual nominee? Of course Republicans took shots at the outsider in their primary. How else would they separate themselves? But, as in every single election ever, they came together after the primary, with the exception of the former Gov of Mass. He's special. Well, he supported Trump when he needed to win an election. But now he's back to being special again.

Nah, it's not exactly the same; not even close. Nobody has been such a juvenile name calling petty moron like trump has been. His latest tweet up there right now says "I am draining the swamp." Fucking hilarious. He is a pathological liar and I believe he's actually quite insane. He says things that are demonstrably false, like how he says billions of dollars are coming into the US Treasury from China because of his tariffs. And a lot of people actually believe this. No Democrat has ever been so far removed from reality and truth. Of course the eventual party nominee ultimately gets the support of the rest of the party; that's just how the system works. Never have there been the divisions with Dems like there have been with trump and the GOP. Never have Democrats in numbers decided to not run for re election because of the way the incumbent president of their party acts like a petulant child. No, it's not the same. If you can't see that, you are refusing to face reality.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of calling Trump "a juvenile name calling petty moron" and then following that up with "He is a pathological liar and I believe he's actually quite insane."?

I've only been here a short time, but I have to say I'm not impressed with the lack of imagination and debate from the Blue Ridge faithful. But I'm not surprised. Do you know why people lie me voted for Trump? Because we like watching him turn the likes of everyone here, into crying, wheezing, panic stricken little kids. Honestly, it has been very entertaining to watch y'all get what you've been dishing out. Decades of baseless insults from the left like racist, sexist, and so on have left us sick and tired of dealing with the left. Now, the left is imploding with an impeachment hearing that will undoubtedly end badly for them and guarantee a landslide victory for Trump. So, bash away. Believe all these fair tales the Pelosi's of DC tell you. But I'd hate to be in your shoes when it all comes tumbling down.

No, I do not see any hypocrisy in calling trump a juvenile name calling petty moron. Give me an example of any Democrat politician who has continually engaged in blatant lying and junior high school type name calling ("Lyin' Ted" "Little Marco" Pocahontas" "Sleepy Joe" "Adam Schitt") and I no doubt would see such hypocrisy.

Find one tweet where AOC or Maxine Waters talks about Republicans or conservatives and doesn't call them racist, sexist or something else. Just one. This has been the issues for more than three decades. Republicans are always called names. Always. And it has become acceptable to the media.

But you can't do that because there is no equivalent that would serve to even create any hypocrisy in the matter. As for trump being insane, I am not a medical professional but have seen more than a few psychologists and psychiatrists write articles about this and reference the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, a non partisan medical reference text that defines the symptoms of various mental health conditions) to support their views of him. And they all state the caveat that no definitive diagnosis can be arrived at without actually examining the patient....another honest statement to indicate their professional objectivity.

And you still don't see the hypocrisy?

As for your assertion that trump "turns the likes of us into crying, wheezing, panic stricken little kids," well, I don't put myself in that pile. I just think trump is pathetically funny and dangerous stupid. I am not by any means the only one who shares this opinion. He is a joke on the world stage, baby Bush described his Inauguration speech as "some weird shit" and he embarrasses himself on a daily basis with his lack of knowledge of his native language with his twitter account. You say he will be re elected by a landslide; I say it's more likely he will resign so he won't lose the lifetime pension and benefits of having been president. If the GOP Senate has any strategic thinkers, they will convince him to do this as well, since it will preclude them from having to vote to remove him from office. If he resigns, GOP Senators won't have to live the rest of their lives with the shame of not voting to remove him and he will get his money. This looks to me to be the more likely scenario instead of a landslide election victory. Either way, I won't be wheezing or crying about it, though; more like laughing and shaking my head.

First, no one can directly quote President Bush as saying that. That was a rumor that was widely reported, but just a rumor. It is also completely irrelevant to this conversation.

Second, you actually think that the billionaire that is donating his salary to charity is worried about the pension and health care plan? Get real.

Third, he has no need to resign because this is all blowing up in the Dems faces. If he doesn't gain 30 seats in the house and 8 or so in the Senate, I will be shocked.

[PeacefulPartier]

I want to address the myth of "innocent until proven guilty." ...

Yeah, me too. "Innocent until proven guilty" has only one valid meaning. In court, the burden of proof of a charge is up to the state. That is, it is the state's responsibility to proven the defendant guilty, not the defendant's responsibility to prove his/her innocence. Thus, as a legal construct, the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty." Outside that limited application, and other administrative-type procedures that adopt court-like standards, it has no validity. Actually, even in court, it only applies to who has to prove what, because the prosecutors certainly don't consider the defendant innocent. Neither do the cops that caught him. They are all quite convinced s/he is guilty or they wouldn't have brought them to trial.

Innocent until proven guilty only has to be applied by the state, but it isn't a bad premise to apply to life. A lot of bad can come from assuming someone is guilty.

Fair enough, but that's not what we have here. Both Rudy and trump have admitted on video that they engaged in the activity they're accused of, namely, attempting to influence a foreign government to meddle in US national political affairs. Nothing else is needed to establish that fact; they've both admitted to it. Charles Manson was convicted of murder and conspiracy but he never actually killed anybody; he just suggested that others do this, and they did. This happened during the Nixon "law and order" days a few years before Nixon and his Nazi cohorts began engaging in their own criminal conspiracy.

You need to post that video. I have yet to see it. I honestly see you as trying to make anything fit the narrative you hope is true. This hole scenario is exactly like the pre-inauguration uproar over Trump's staff establishing communication with Russia (and every other foreign power) but Russia Russia Russia!

[Vrede too]

He could be a liberal FriendoFred type out to make the MAGAts look like idiots, but that's a lot like standing in the rain to prove that rain is wet.

That's a good theory! If I was trying to mock Trupmpettes by impersonating them I would not be as ambitious as PP, though.

No matter what else happens, I'll never get over what a fool trump looked after claiming he could commit murder in front of the world and it wouldn't make a difference to his followers. There's no way Americans are that shallow and stupid. I was wrong.

He did and is, they are, you were.

***Color response for MAGAt annoyance and confusion purposes only.

[neoplacebo]

I say that peaceful partier might need to watch the Sunday morning political shows on some other outlet other than Faux News if it wants to see the trump crowd incriminate themselves on live tv over and over. I will not do its research for it.

It also needs to be prepared to be shocked after the results of next years elections from president down to mayor. Nothing else it posted is worthy of any sort of reply.

[billy.pilgrim]

I want to address the myth of "innocent until proven guilty." ...

Yeah, me too. "Innocent until proven guilty" has only one valid meaning. In court, the burden of proof of a charge is up to the state. That is, it is the state's responsibility to proven the defendant guilty, not the defendant's responsibility to prove his/her innocence. Thus, as a legal construct, the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty." Outside that limited application, and other administrative-type procedures that adopt court-like standards, it has no validity. Actually, even in court, it only applies to who has to prove what, because the prosecutors certainly don't consider the defendant innocent. Neither do the cops that caught him. They are all quite convinced s/he is guilty or they wouldn't have brought them to trial.

Innocent until proven guilty only has to be applied by the state, but it isn't a bad premise to apply to life. A lot of bad can come from assuming someone is guilty.

Fair enough, but that's not what we have here. Both Rudy and trump have admitted on video that they engaged in the activity they're accused of, namely, attempting to influence a foreign government to meddle in US national political affairs. Nothing else is needed to establish that fact; they've both admitted to it. Charles Manson was convicted of murder and conspiracy but he never actually killed anybody; he just suggested that others do this, and they did. This happened during the Nixon "law and order" days a few years before Nixon and his Nazi cohorts began engaging in their own criminal conspiracy.

You need to post that video. I have yet to see it. I honestly see you as trying to make anything fit the narrative you hope is true. This hole scenario is exactly like the pre-inauguration uproar over Trump's staff establishing communication with Russia (and every other foreign power) but Russia Russia Russia!

It was a secret communication channel

And while we are on double standards, take a look at what was said about Obama and both Clintons, but then you probably believe the pedophile pizza parlor bullshit and was it Hillary or her staff that fox talkers said murdered Seth Rich. The list is long, but there is one glaring difference, the Hillary stuff is lies, but most of the trump rumors prove true.

You really should take a second look at what Jared and was caught doing at the Russian embassy, but you won't, not any more than you looked hard at the truth about Acorn and the underage prostitutes or WMDs in Iraq.

[O Really]

...Innocent until proven guilty only has to be applied by the state, but it isn't a bad premise to apply to life. A lot of bad can come from assuming someone is guilty.

As a broad principle, it's certainly wise to make some effort to verify the information or accusation before immediately jumping to "guilty." But even in court, there are different standards of proof. Criminal conviction expects "beyond reasonable doubt." Civil decisions require "preponderance of evidence." Warrants are issued and arrests made on "probable cause." Informal decisions may often just rely on "reasonable belief." Key word there being "reasonable."

[billy.pilgrim]

Remember all the times Obama actually did provide evidence to prove his innocence or place of birth, or religion or ...

Yet republicans continued to claim guilt

[PeacefulPartier]

Yeah, me too. "Innocent until proven guilty" has only one valid meaning. In court, the burden of proof of a charge is up to the state. That is, it is the state's responsibility to proven the defendant guilty, not the defendant's responsibility to prove his/her innocence. Thus, as a legal construct, the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty." Outside that limited application, and other administrative-type procedures that adopt court-like standards, it has no validity. Actually, even in court, it only applies to who has to prove what, because the prosecutors certainly don't consider the defendant innocent. Neither do the cops that caught him. They are all quite convinced s/he is guilty or they wouldn't have brought them to trial.

Innocent until proven guilty only has to be applied by the state, but it isn't a bad premise to apply to life. A lot of bad can come from assuming someone is guilty.

Fair enough, but that's not what we have here. Both Rudy and trump have admitted on video that they engaged in the activity they're accused of, namely, attempting to influence a foreign government to meddle in US national political affairs. Nothing else is needed to establish that fact; they've both admitted to it. Charles Manson was convicted of murder and conspiracy but he never actually killed anybody; he just suggested that others do this, and they did. This happened during the Nixon "law and order" days a few years before Nixon and his Nazi cohorts began engaging in their own criminal conspiracy.

You need to post that video. I have yet to see it. I honestly see you as trying to make anything fit the narrative you hope is true. This hole scenario is exactly like the pre-inauguration uproar over Trump's staff establishing communication with Russia (and every other foreign power) but Russia Russia Russia!

It was a secret communication channel

Oh...so there is no video that you can show me?

And while we are on double standards, take a look at what was said about Obama and both Clintons, but then you probably believe the pedophile pizza parlor bullshit and was it Hillary or her staff that fox talkers said murdered Seth Rich. The list is long, but there is one glaring difference, the Hillary stuff is lies, but most of the trump rumors prove true.

Deflect much?

You really should take a second look at what Jared and was caught doing at the Russian embassy, but you won't, not any more than you looked hard at the truth about Acorn and the underage prostitutes or WMDs in Iraq.

How many examples of personal hypocrisy are you guys going to post on here before you realize you aren't winning?

[PeacefulPartier]

...Innocent until proven guilty only has to be applied by the state, but it isn't a bad premise to apply to life. A lot of bad can come from assuming someone is guilty.

As a broad principle, it's certainly wise to make some effort to verify the information or accusation before immediately jumping to "guilty." But even in court, there are different standards of proof. Criminal conviction expects "beyond reasonable doubt." Civil decisions require "preponderance of evidence." Warrants are issued and arrests made on "probable cause." Informal decisions may often just rely on "reasonable belief." Key word there being "reasonable."

I'm glad we can agree on something. See, a smiley face emoji.