Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

Trump’s revenge

233 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
2 hours ago, acute said:

WRONG!

Acquittal does not mean innocent.

 

NO ! 

The judicial systems of ALL liberal democracies state that "innocent until prove guilty". 

If you are NOT proven guilty, then you are innocent. 

Are you TRULY going to attempt to gainsay this ? I mean.. really ? 

acquittal means innocent ! Deny that if you can ! 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

 

4 hours ago, acute said:

WRONG!

Acquittal does not mean innocent.

 

Funny, I always thought the principle was that one was innocent until the prosecution could prove that you were guilty. For the world's most hated tyrant, though, it seems to be the other way round, and that even if he was acquitted he's still obviously guilty, just because it's him.

Edited by Dumbledore the Awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

NO ! 

The judicial systems of ALL liberal democracies state that "innocent until prove guilty". 

If you are NOT proven guilty, then you are innocent. 

Are you TRULY going to attempt to gainsay this ? I mean.. really ? 

acquittal means innocent ! Deny that if you can ! 

That's what I said. Although I said it in not quite such big font.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

acquittal means innocent !

You'll have to argue with the judiciary on that one.

Acquittal is the same as the Scottish 'not proven' verdict. In no way does it indicate or imply innocence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
10 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

 

Funny, I always thought the principle was that one was innocent until the prosecution could prove that you were guilty. For the world's most hated tyrant, though, it seems to be the other way round, and that even if he was acquitted he's still obviously guilty, just because it's him.

So Trump did nothing wrong ? Surely he was responsible for at least some of the charges against him...

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

So Trump did nothing wrong ? Surely he was responsible for at least some of the charges against him...

oh for cryin' out loud, that's how the principle of law works isn't it, that's all I'm saying 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
16 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Funny, I always thought the principle was that one was innocent until the prosecution could prove that you were guilty.

That's right..... but this isn't a guilty/ not guilty verdict, it's an acquittal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
12 hours ago, and then said:

Too damned right he was... that is the part of his vote that makes me want to spit in his face.  I don't demand lockstep agreement from anyone but he went to Trump and Trump campaigned for him and now this sleaze sticks a shiv in his back.  He needs to take his bullet-proof hair and his magical underwear and go back to land of sand and canyons... It really baffles me that he would take this step while knowing he is basically taking a big old dump of feces on any political future he might have wanted.  I guess it's just another example of TDS.  

I can’t see how Mitt Romney is to blame. No one put a gun to Trumps head so he can make that call. One vote went against him. So what. My question to you is why is t Trump happy? He seems miserable even though he won. 54% of Americans believe Trump was guilty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
2 minutes ago, acute said:

That's right..... but this isn't a guilty/ not guilty verdict, it's an acquittal.

Yes, and so the starting point in any trial is that the accused is guilty until -no wait, that's the Democratic way of doing it. Innocent until proven guilty, that's right, isn't it. Therefore he's as innocent now as he was before they started. :hmm:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute

@Dumbledore the Awesome

Oh well..... I tried!

Maybe a Google search will explain the different legal terms better than I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
30 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

oh for cryin' out loud, that's how the principle of law works isn't it, that's all I'm saying 

Trump never faced a court of law. Just a political process. So why are you talking about a “principal of law”?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

 

2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump never faced a court of law. Just a political process. So why are you talking about a “principal of law”?

what are you arguing about, then? If the Monster wasn't even tried in a court of law then it was obviously all a politically motivated pantomime right from the start, wasn't it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
36 minutes ago, acute said:

You'll have to argue with the judiciary on that one.

Acquittal is the same as the Scottish 'not proven' verdict. In no way does it indicate or imply innocence.

ac·quit·tal

(ə-kwĭt′l)

n.
1. Judgment, as by a jury or judge, that a defendant is not guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved not guilty.
 

acquittal

(əˈkwɪtəl)
n
1. (Law) criminal law the deliverance and release of a person appearing before a court on a charge of crime, as by a finding of not guilty

ac•quit•tal

(əˈkwɪt l)

n.
1. judicial deliverance from a criminal charge on a verdict or finding of not guilty.
 
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/acquittal
.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
1 minute ago, Swede said:

acquittal

1. (Law) criminal law the deliverance and release of a person appearing before a court on a charge of crime, as by a finding of not guilty

You've proved my point!

"as by", not "by"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

 

what are you arguing about, then? If the Monster wasn't even tried in a court of law then it was obviously all a politically motivated pantomime right from the start, wasn't it. 

Yes it was. Technically the system should have tried Trump in a court of law. You and the rest of the right wingers fail to see that Trump is the architect of his own problems. Not the Democrats or Mitt Romney. At best the Ukraine scandals were borderline criminal and at worse corruption. 
 

The problem is Trump can do as he pleases outside the powers of the presidency and there’s just no recourse. I haven’t heard Trump ever say that he could have handled it better. Nor you say it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
2 minutes ago, acute said:

You've proved my point!

"as by", not "by"

1) Selective quote. Note the other definitions.

2) Learn a bit about formal "legalese".

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
7 minutes ago, Swede said:

Selective quote. Note the other definitions.

The second definition you posted is the only legal definition.

 

16 minutes ago, Swede said:

acquittal

(əˈkwɪtəl)

n
1. (Law) criminal law the deliverance and release of a person appearing before a court on a charge of crime, as by a finding of not guilty

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
21 hours ago, and then said:

 

If it was me, some of these snakes would have to start looking for employment FAR, FAR from DC.  But I'm a vindictive sort when someone crosses me.  I guess it's that whole Scorpio vibe :w00t:  I'd hold a damned high energy grudge against the Ukrainian Twins.  

Thank goodness you have all the charisma and power of a small waterbiscuit then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 ALL liberal democracies state that "innocent until prove guilty". 

If you are NOT proven guilty, then you are innocent. 

 

1 hour ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Funny, I always thought the principle was that one was innocent until the prosecution could prove that you were guilty. 

Technically, it's actually presumed innocent until proven guilty. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
33 minutes ago, acute said:

The second definition you posted is the only legal definition

And "as by" refers to the legal process. Your contention is incorrect. Period.

.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
15 hours ago, drakonwick said:

republicans are known for race bating.

If your experience is that it is more of a problem among Republicans then I'd suggest you are viewing that problem through a partisan filter.  Folks on the Left tend to believe that only caucasian and conservative people can be racists.  Racism comes from all races and political leanings.  The Democrats have used the term to attack and silence their opponents so often that it minimizes the seriousness of the offensive behavior.  I grew up in Alabama in the 60s and I know a little about true racism.  It is UGLY and destructive.  It's been my experience that in the last couple of decades, the use of race as a club to beat opponents with is a technique perfected by Progressives in the media.  If they aren't careful, they may get bitten by it at some point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 hours ago, third_eye said:

What's behind door number two.... 

Trump! :w00t:  He's behind any door he chooses because HE  CAN  ;)   Nancy can grin about him being "Impeached forever" but it just demonstrates her pettiness and hatred for the man.  The record will clearly show this was a hyper partisan attack on a popular president and that the Constitution's provisions worked exactly as they were designed to do.  I guess those old white guys knew a little about how human beings would behave, huh? 

The petulant fools who are ramping and raging about the Electoral College and are scheming to gut or remove 2A- and other "politically inconvenient" RIGHTS of the people - frame their considered wisdom on the course of "change" and modernization and casting away old and antiquated structures.  Mankind began to mature during the Enlightenment and these men who got together to create a new way forward, they understood from their studies of life and human nature that the one thing that would NEVER change would be the desire for power and the inevitable tyranny that followed when too much power was accrued by any individual. 

Trump finally booted a couple of Obama appointees out of his branch and they can now move on in their original career paths.  If he were the dictator that silly fluffs on the Left regularly accuse him of being, the brothers Vindman would be assuming room temp instead of being given a standing "O".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
2 hours ago, Swede said:
3 hours ago, acute said:

The second definition you posted is the only legal definition

And "as by" refers to the legal process. Your contention is incorrect. Period.

Does anyone understand this?

If so, please translate it into something I can grasp.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

He seems miserable even though he won.

Does he?  I hadn't noticed him seeming down or blue.  He sounds like he's on top of the world.  That's the most fascinating part of his personality to me.  Nothing bothers him for long.  He just focuses on moving forward.  I think it must just be his nature.  

 

29 minutes ago, acute said:

Does anyone understand this?

If so, please translate it into something I can grasp.

I don't parlay legalese but the term "acquittal" means the jury voted not to impose a penalty for the charges that were argued against the defendant.  The Senators acted as a jury and their vote is the judgment.  

 

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

 At best the Ukraine scandals were borderline criminal and at worse corruption. 

This is your opinion and it isn't shared by the supermajority of the Senate.  I'd also add, had this been in a court, the rules of evidence and the other procedures would have destroyed Schiff's inquisition immediately.  He ran a rigged game and the result was rejected by a majority of Senators.  I believe we dodged a real bullet by this outrageous overreach.  Had the Dems used this process and managed to remove a popular president even though the proceedings were so rigged, there might well have been serious chaos and violence as a result.  It's like the Dems WANT that to happen.  Who benefits if that happens?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 hours ago, and then said:

*Vindictive partisanship vitriol*

And then all you have to pray for is no one succeeds in "taking him out" to "get rid of him"

~

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.