nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Beasty

No spitting, biting, gouging or uncivility allowed

First thread here

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LessOutragePlz

namloc1980 wrote: »

Donald Trump said yesterday that people should vote twice (once by mail and once in person) to somehow test the system. He said this in North Carolina where it is a felony to induce others to vote more than once:

§ 163-275. Certain acts declared felonies.
Any person who shall, in connection with any primary, general or special election held in this State, do any of the acts or things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class I felony. It shall be unlawful:
- For any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or election;

https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_163.html

If a Democratic candidate came out and said that the conservative media and Trumpists would lose their absolute minds over it. And here we have the President of the US encouraging people to vote twice.

It's a good way of finding out if the postal system is fit for purpose because, if they caught voting a second time then we'll know that we can trust the postal voting system and if they don't well........... you can come to your own conclusion on that.

namloc1980

Donald Trump said yesterday that people should vote twice (once by mail and once in person) to somehow test the system. He said this in North Carolina where it is a felony to induce others to vote more than once:

§ 163-275. Certain acts declared felonies.
Any person who shall, in connection with any primary, general or special election held in this State, do any of the acts or things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class I felony. It shall be unlawful:
- For any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or election;

https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_163.html

If a Democratic candidate came out and said that the conservative media and Trumpists would lose their absolute minds over it. And here we have the President of the US encouraging people to vote twice.

duploelabs

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes of course once he is convicted of a crime in a court he will be a criminal, until then he is not a criminal IMO.

We was an unnamed indicted co-conspirator in the southern district of new york in the trial of Michael Cohen, the fact that he's president meant that he escaped punishment.
That's pretty much black and white for you

LessOutragePlz

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Is Hilary Clinton a criminal??

No because she wasn't convicted of a crime.

Quin_Dub

Is Hilary Clinton a criminal??

Carfacemandog

ELM327 wrote: »

You are not a criminal until you are tried and convicted by a jury of your peers. The law is pretty clear and unanimous in most western countries about this. The US (and Ireland for that matter) is no exception.

This is a bit of a joke given you were literally calling for protesters to be shot on sight earlier in these protests for entering the house of a man who had invited them into his home.

mcmoustache

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes of course once he is convicted of a crime in a court he will be a criminal, until then he is not a criminal IMO.

You're thinking of the state's point of view. In the eyes of the state, you aren't a criminal until you've been tried and found guilty. There are good reasons for that.

For humans, you are a criminal if you commit crimes.

[Deleted User]

ELM327 wrote: »

You are not a criminal until you are tried and convicted by a jury of your peers. The law is pretty clear and unanimous in most western countries about this. The US (and Ireland for that matter) is no exception.

You can be a criminal, you're just not a convicted criminal. Trump does have a history and pattern of criminality, he just used wealth to avoid outright convictions.

mcmoustache

ELM327 wrote: »

You are not a criminal until you are tried and convicted by a jury of your peers. The law is pretty clear and unanimous in most western countries about this. The US (and Ireland for that matter) is no exception.

That's the definition used by the State and with good reason.

Among humans, the definition is closer to "someone who committed a crime". If some scumbag robs a shop, a human considers them a criminal at that point. The State on the other hand can only do this after a process.

By your strict definition, many of the gangsters in this country and abroad aren't criminals. It's fine to believe that but not particularly useful.

Penn

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

So your basically saying that a person is not innocent until proven guilty?

And that a crime has been committed but there isn't enough evidence to prove it.

Tell me this: Who decides that a person is guilty of a crime even when there isn't enough evidence to prove it?

I'm saying "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean what you think it does. It relates to ensuring a fair trial.

Again, if I punched you in the face, it doesn't mean I haven't punched you in the face until it's been proven in a court of law, and that if there isn't enough evidence to convict me and I'm found not guilty, it doesn't mean I didn't punch you in the face.

To bring it back to Trump rather than go further down this rabbit hole, the number of criminal investigations he's currently subject to, an unindicted co-conspirator to, and fighting to prevent release of evidence for.... I think it's a pretty safe bet to say he's guilty of something, and his position as POTUS is helping him fight them (especially with Barr on his side).

ELM327

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes of course once he is convicted of a crime in a court he will be a criminal, until then he is not a criminal IMO.

No need for the IMO, what you have stated is determined to be correct by statute.

ELM327

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ever hear of Schrodinger's cat?

Yes. We in fact have a longhaired persian called Schrodinger.

Unfortunately he doesnt make the law.

LessOutragePlz

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting that.

Regardless, it's clear that you'll just continue to redefine what you consider to be a criminal to avoid having Trump fit that definition. That's your right, childish and illogical as it may be.

I assume you can be held to that definition in future conversations?

Yes of course once he is convicted of a crime in a court he will be a criminal, until then he is not a criminal IMO.

ELM327

weisses wrote: »

So I am not a criminal when running around killing people .... Only when I'm actually caught doing it ?

You are not a criminal until you are tried and convicted by a jury of your peers. The law is pretty clear and unanimous in most western countries about this. The US (and Ireland for that matter) is no exception.

LessOutragePlz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ever hear of Schrodinger's cat?

I have, watched a video in relation to quantum theory that used it.

I can see how you would apply it here but the law is black and white.

You're either guilty or not guilty.

There's a lot more of a grey area in science especially quantum theory.

mcmoustache

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

So he's not a criminal?

I don't know where you're getting that.

Regardless, it's clear that you'll just continue to redefine what you consider to be a criminal to avoid having Trump fit that definition. That's your right, childish and illogical as it may be.

I assume you can be held to that definition in future conversations?

Professor Moriarty

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He's not hiding anything he's under no obligation to release them.

Ever hear of Schrodinger's cat?

LessOutragePlz

duploelabs wrote: »

Southern District of New York

Can you provide me with the judgement that was made against him and the punishment that was handed down by the court?

duploelabs

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

What court convicted him of this crime?

Southern District of New York

namloc1980

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I didn't ignore the question. You just failed to understand the answer. Trump said you gotta see this guy in reference to his grovelling. Watch the video I included. The motions he uses are the ones he always used when mocking people and no that does not mean he's mocking all disabled people. What the hell is wrong with you all? NO disabled people mocked for being disabled. It never happened.

No he didn't - you're deliberately ignoring it at this stage. I'll quote Trump again as you've obviously missed it the first few times: "nice reporter, now the poor guy you gotta see this guy". Why say he's a "poor guy" that people "gotta see"? What's poor about him?

LessOutragePlz

mcmoustache wrote: »

He's an unindicted co-conspirator in that case but he cannot be indicted while in office.

So he's not a criminal?

LessOutragePlz

Penn wrote: »

I punch you in the face. Am I innocent of punching you in the face until proven guilty in a court of law? Let's say there's not enough evidence and I'm given a verdict of not guilty. Were you not punched in the face?

Innocent until proven guilty is the legal position of the court, judge, prosecutors, jury etc, must start from the position that the defendant is innocent, and it's up to the prosecutors to prove to the judge/jury that the defendant is guilty.

It does not mean a crime has not been committed until the defendant has been proven guilty, or that if they're found not guilty it doesn't always mean they're not guilty, but could mean there wasn't enough evidence (or the prosecutors weren't able) to prove the defendant was guilty.

Trump not being convicted of a crime does not mean he hasn't committed any, and given his position and the number of investigations into him and his stonewalling of every investigation, it's more than likely he is guilty of some crimes.

Right now it's only his position as POTUS which is helping him block criminal proceedings against him.

So your basically saying that a person is not innocent until proven guilty?

And that a crime has been committed but there isn't enough evidence to prove it.

Tell me this: Who decides that a person is guilty of a crime even when there isn't enough evidence to prove it?

mcmoustache

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

What court convicted him of this crime?

He's an unindicted co-conspirator in that case but he cannot be indicted while in office.

weisses

Penn wrote: »

Right now it's only his position as POTUS which is helping him block criminal proceedings against him.

Plus his wealth which he can use to settle without admitting guilt

Every normal citizen would have done serious time

LessOutragePlz

duploelabs wrote: »

Campaign finance violation, a federal crime

What court convicted him of this crime?

weisses

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

You need to read my post again I said a settlement is NOT an admission of guilt never has been and it never will be, unless they admit liability with the settlement.

Edit: I left out the word not in my post

Yeah that word is kinda important

Penn

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yup innocent until proven guilty.

I punch you in the face. Am I innocent of punching you in the face until proven guilty in a court of law? Let's say there's not enough evidence and I'm given a verdict of not guilty. Were you not punched in the face?

Innocent until proven guilty is the legal position of the court, judge, prosecutors, jury etc, must start from the position that the defendant is innocent, and it's up to the prosecutors to prove to the judge/jury that the defendant is guilty.

It does not mean a crime has not been committed until the defendant has been proven guilty, or that if they're found not guilty it doesn't always mean they're not guilty, but could mean there wasn't enough evidence (or the prosecutors weren't able) to prove the defendant was guilty.

Trump not being convicted of a crime does not mean he hasn't committed any, and given his position and the number of investigations into him and his stonewalling of every investigation, it's more than likely he is guilty of some crimes.

Right now it's only his position as POTUS which is helping him block criminal proceedings against him.

LessOutragePlz

weisses wrote: »

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/04/10/trump-university-settlement-judge-finalized/502387002/

So trump settled ... According to you that is an admmission of guilt

And according to you

Ur welcome

You need to read my post again I said a settlement is NOT an admission of guilt never has been and it never will be, unless they admit liability with the settlement.

Edit: I left out the word not in my original post

duploelabs

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

And what crime was Trump convicted of in that case?

Campaign finance violation, a federal crime

weisses

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

A settlement does mean he is guilty of a crime, or that it is an admission of guilt.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/04/10/trump-university-settlement-judge-finalized/502387002/

A federal judge finalized the $25 million settlement between President Trump and students of his now shuttered Trump University on Monday, with New York's attorney general claiming “victims of Donald Trump’s fraudulent university will finally receive the relief they deserve.”

So trump settled ... According to you that is an admmission of guilt

And according to you

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I can't support a criminal.

Ur welcome