CDZ Innocent until proven guilty.

[Camp]

Another gift to the colonies from Britain.

I have seen comments on here that it is under threat in the US.

What say you ? Is it under threat and if so is it worth defending ?

Yes...the democrats don't want their enemies to have that Right.... and yes, it is worth defending...

That right doesnt seem to apply to Mrs Clinton though ?

Trump continues his con job rants about everyone who criticizes or opposes him are criminals, but, it is his associates, former administration staff and even himself who are being caught and proven or forced to defend themselves in criminal or civil courts of law. A criminal is pointing the light away from himself and deflecting away from his own crimes and misbehavior.

 

[Papageorgio]

Another gift to the colonies from Britain.

I have seen comments on here that it is under threat in the US.

What say you ? Is it under threat and if so is it worth defending ?

Yes...the democrats don't want their enemies to have that Right.... and yes, it is worth defending...

That right doesnt seem to apply to Mrs Clinton though ?

Clinton is in jail? She has no charges against her, no one is investigating her, she is free.

 

[Papageorgio]

Another gift to the colonies from Britain.

I have seen comments on here that it is under threat in the US.

What say you ? Is it under threat and if so is it worth defending ?

Yes...the democrats don't want their enemies to have that Right.... and yes, it is worth defending...

That right doesnt seem to apply to Mrs Clinton though ?

Trump continues his con job rants about everyone who criticizes or opposes him are criminals, but, it is his associates, former administration staff and even himself who are being caught and proven or forced to defend themselves in criminal or civil courts of law. A criminal is pointing the light away from himself and deflecting away from his own crimes and misbehavior.

You are as looney as the Clinton haters.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope....any statement made to the committee is under threat of perjury and up to 5 years in prison...sorry, it is more than just a job interview, you don't go to jail for lying at a job interview....

Which has NOTHING to do with whether Kavanagh has to be "Proven Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to be Rejected.

He does NOT.
Many nominees have been rejected, not "Proven" anything.

YOU LOST.
But you persist depite the decorum that should be accorded here.
`

They need to move off Kavanaugh and he needs to pursue slander charges against Ford, Feinstein and the DNC.

Trump needs to nominate a more conservative judge and if that fails an even more conservative judge. The American public will put the heat on the Senate to confirm.

 

[gipper]

There have been several democrats who have specifically said that a woman who accuses a man of sexual misconduct should be believed. That is guilty until proven innocent, which for the democrats applies to all men unless of course they are democrats like that Ellison guy in Minnesota who is a democrat running to be the next state AG.

Re the innocent black guys killed by police, I think it most cases the cop doesn't shoot somebody unless he/she feels threatened. It isn't a question of innocence or guilt, it's a question of self-defense. Cops do not decide innocence or guilt, their job is to stop any violence and investigate what happened and arrest anybody who ought to be arrested. Sometimes it turns out that the cop acted inappropriately and should not have shot the person, nobody is saying in every case the shooting was justified. But I would say that most conservatives do not approve of unwarranted police violence against blacks, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

It is the height of hypocrisy for Ds pols to say today, believe the woman. When you consider that a little more than two decades ago, they fully supported a POTUS who clearly abused many women, but they didn’t stop there. They took the additional steps of attacking and denigrating those women.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Another gift to the colonies from Britain.

I have seen comments on here that it is under threat in the US.

What say you ? Is it under threat and if so is it worth defending ?

Yes...the democrats don't want their enemies to have that Right.... and yes, it is worth defending...

That right doesnt seem to apply to Mrs Clinton though ?

Clinton is in jail? She has no charges against her, no one is investigating her, she is free.

Free is not what we are discussing. Innocent till proven guilty is the topic.

 

[2aguy]

There have been several democrats who have specifically said that a woman who accuses a man of sexual misconduct should be believed. That is guilty until proven innocent, which for the democrats applies to all men unless of course they are democrats like that Ellison guy in Minnesota who is a democrat running to be the next state AG.

Re the innocent black guys killed by police, I think it most cases the cop doesn't shoot somebody unless he/she feels threatened. It isn't a question of innocence or guilt, it's a question of self-defense. Cops do not decide innocence or guilt, their job is to stop any violence and investigate what happened and arrest anybody who ought to be arrested. Sometimes it turns out that the cop acted inappropriately and should not have shot the person, nobody is saying in every case the shooting was justified. But I would say that most conservatives do not approve of unwarranted police violence against blacks, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

It is the height of hypocrisy for Ds pols to say today, believe the woman. When you consider that a little more than two decades ago, they fully supported a POTUS who clearly abused many women, but they didn’t stop there. They took the additional steps of attacking and denigrating those women.

2 decades ago? They are doing it right now.....they are protecting bob menendez, accused of raping under age girls in the Dominican Republic, keith ellison, accused of abusing a girlfriend, and several others.......

 

[Papageorgio]

Another gift to the colonies from Britain.

I have seen comments on here that it is under threat in the US.

What say you ? Is it under threat and if so is it worth defending ?

Yes...the democrats don't want their enemies to have that Right.... and yes, it is worth defending...

That right doesnt seem to apply to Mrs Clinton though ?

Clinton is in jail? She has no charges against her, no one is investigating her, she is free.

Free is not what we are discussing. Innocent till proven guilty is the topic.

She is innocent, who says she is guilty? I don’t, does she need investigated? If she runs for any office she needs to be, we need to investigate everyone who runs for any public office, if they have ever gotten drunk, lost their temper, smoked pot, did any recreational drugs, had sex outside of marriage, uttered an offensive phrase, had a speeding or a parking ticket they need to be excluded from running for office.

 

[evenflow1969]

I wish Republicans and other assorted self-proclaimed conservatives had a scintilla of the amount of care for innocent blacks that have been killed by police as they have for this grown-up prep-kid Kavanaught that they've been weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over.

Again racism rears its' ugly head. The poor are most likely to be victims of the system regardless of the color of their skin.

Yes it is not a white or black thing it is a poor wealthy thing. Innocent until proven guilty has been under attack since I have been alive. Even if you are found innocent in a court of law you will answer to those charges every time you go for a job interview or proffesional certification.

 

[eflatminor]

I wish Republicans and other assorted self-proclaimed conservatives had a scintilla of the amount of care for innocent blacks that have been killed by police as they have for this grown-up prep-kid Kavanaught that they've been weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over.

Care to point to a circumstance in which a police office actually killed an innocent person (of whatever race) and wasn't given the presumption of innocence?

Didn't read the OP did you?

 

[MarcATL]

Care to point to a circumstance in which a police office actually killed an innocent person (of whatever race) and wasn't given the presumption of innocence?

Didn't read the OP did you?

Are you serious?

Tamir Rice.

 

[oldsoul]

If you do not see the clear comparison I laid out, I do not know how to make it more clear. So, is it ok, in your opinion, to publicly smear her via Facebook, with no further evidence than that of "credible friends"?

Actually, I pointed out why they were Invalid with 100% Clarity.

1. "Innocent until proven Guilty" is for Criminal Trials, and does NOT apply to Hearings or job interviews. Not even Civil Lawsuits for that matter.

2. this is a Public and Televised National Hearing, and people can and have come forward.
That's what happens and has happened.

Debunking both of your comparisons.
I'm sure you understand but you persisted.
`

Fine. Any interest in answering the questions? Or are you too hung up on "proving" I'm wrong?

More to the point, Would you wish to be considered innocent at least until some sort of substantiated evidence is provided? Are we a country that is willing to blindly deny someone a position based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation? Are you willing to allow that to be the standard for you and your family?
What is happening here is a pure political smear campaign. There is NO EVIDENCE brought forth to date that points to the possibility that what Mrs. Ford is claiming is, in fact, the truth. That said, I do believe that someone may have done something to her at some point. If that is enough for you to deny Kavanaugh the bench, then I ask you, are you familiar with Emmett Till? His accuser, in a death bed confession, admitted that he did NOTHING to her. Unfortunately, this confession was DECADES too late for Emmett. Is that the standard you wish to go back to?

 

[abu afak]

Actually, I pointed out why they were Invalid with 100% Clarity.
1. "Innocent until proven Guilty" is for Criminal Trials, and does NOT apply to Hearings or job interviews. Not even Civil Lawsuits for that matter.
2. this is a Public and Televised National Hearing, and people can and have come forward.
That's what happens and has happened.

Debunking both of your comparisons.
I'm sure you understand but you persisted.
`

Fine. Any interest in answering the questions? Or are you too hung up on "proving" I'm wrong?

More to the point, Would you wish to be considered innocent at least until some sort of substantiated evidence is provided? Are we a country that is willing to blindly deny someone a position based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation? Are you willing to allow that to be the standard for you and your family?
What is happening here is a pure political smear campaign. There is NO EVIDENCE brought forth to date that points to the possibility that what Mrs. Ford is claiming is, in fact, the truth. That said, I do believe that someone may have done something to her at some point. If that is enough for you to deny Kavanaugh the bench, then I ask you, are you familiar with Emmett Till? His accuser, in a death bed confession, admitted that he did NOTHING to her. Unfortunately, this confession was DECADES too late for Emmett. Is that the standard you wish to go back to?

So to be Clear II.
Your OP profer was way off. a very poor analogy.

As to your "question", I asked a more relevant/analogous one earler.
If a woman you were considering hiring as baby sitter had Credible accusation/s of Child molestation made against her (but NOT "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt"), would you hire her?

THAT is a a more apt Comparison.
This is not a Criminal trial, it's a hearing/job interview.
`

 

[oldsoul]

Actually, I pointed out why they were Invalid with 100% Clarity.
1. "Innocent until proven Guilty" is for Criminal Trials, and does NOT apply to Hearings or job interviews. Not even Civil Lawsuits for that matter.
2. this is a Public and Televised National Hearing, and people can and have come forward.
That's what happens and has happened.

Debunking both of your comparisons.
I'm sure you understand but you persisted.
`

Fine. Any interest in answering the questions? Or are you too hung up on "proving" I'm wrong?

More to the point, Would you wish to be considered innocent at least until some sort of substantiated evidence is provided? Are we a country that is willing to blindly deny someone a position based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation? Are you willing to allow that to be the standard for you and your family?
What is happening here is a pure political smear campaign. There is NO EVIDENCE brought forth to date that points to the possibility that what Mrs. Ford is claiming is, in fact, the truth. That said, I do believe that someone may have done something to her at some point. If that is enough for you to deny Kavanaugh the bench, then I ask you, are you familiar with Emmett Till? His accuser, in a death bed confession, admitted that he did NOTHING to her. Unfortunately, this confession was DECADES too late for Emmett. Is that the standard you wish to go back to?

So to be Clear II.
Your OP profer was way off. a very poor analogy.

As to your "question", I asked a more relevant/analogous one earler.
If a woman you were considering hiring as baby sitter had Credible accusation/s of Child molestation made against her (but NOT "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt"), would you hire her?

THAT is a a more apt Comparison.
This is not a Criminal trial, it's a hearing/job interview.
`

You do not seem to have any interest in discussing the larger issue here. To be fair, I have little interest in discussing the smaller issue. So, I guess that's where we are. I have little interest in discussing what you wish to, and you have little/no interest in discussing what I wish to.

As to who's analogy is more relevant, I suppose that depends on which issue one wishes to discuss.

 

[oldsoul]

Actually, I pointed out why they were Invalid with 100% Clarity.
1. "Innocent until proven Guilty" is for Criminal Trials, and does NOT apply to Hearings or job interviews. Not even Civil Lawsuits for that matter.
2. this is a Public and Televised National Hearing, and people can and have come forward.
That's what happens and has happened.

Debunking both of your comparisons.
I'm sure you understand but you persisted.
`

Fine. Any interest in answering the questions? Or are you too hung up on "proving" I'm wrong?

More to the point, Would you wish to be considered innocent at least until some sort of substantiated evidence is provided? Are we a country that is willing to blindly deny someone a position based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation? Are you willing to allow that to be the standard for you and your family?
What is happening here is a pure political smear campaign. There is NO EVIDENCE brought forth to date that points to the possibility that what Mrs. Ford is claiming is, in fact, the truth. That said, I do believe that someone may have done something to her at some point. If that is enough for you to deny Kavanaugh the bench, then I ask you, are you familiar with Emmett Till? His accuser, in a death bed confession, admitted that he did NOTHING to her. Unfortunately, this confession was DECADES too late for Emmett. Is that the standard you wish to go back to?

So to be Clear II.
Your OP profer was way off. a very poor analogy.

As to your "question", I asked a more relevant/analogous one earler.
If a woman you were considering hiring as baby sitter had Credible accusation/s of Child molestation made against her (but NOT "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt"), would you hire her?

THAT is a a more apt Comparison.
This is not a Criminal trial, it's a hearing/job interview.
`

You refer, I assume to post #10. I responded in post #11, and asked for more clarity. You have yet to provide such clarity. Are you sure you want to continue playing this game?

 

[eflatminor]

Care to point to a circumstance in which a police office actually killed an innocent person (of whatever race) and wasn't given the presumption of innocence?

Didn't read the OP did you?

Are you serious?

Tamir Rice.

Again, you didn't read the OP...or you didn't understand it. The cop in your example most certainly experienced the presumption of innocence.

You appear to have a reading comprehension issue!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Another gift to the colonies from Britain.

I have seen comments on here that it is under threat in the US.

What say you ? Is it under threat and if so is it worth defending ?

Does presuming to assign guilt to people for crimes committed in a different day and age and by someone else, especially if it was over one hundred years ago, fit the bill?

*****SMILE*****

 

[abu afak]

You do not seem to have any interest in discussing the larger issue here. To be fair, I have little interest in discussing the smaller issue. So, I guess that's where we are. I have little interest in discussing what you wish to, and you have little/no interest in discussing what I wish to.

As to who's analogy is more relevant, I suppose that depends on which issue one wishes to discuss.

The problem here was always the Conflating of standards between the Kavanagh Nominee hearings and Criminal trials.

No one would disagree with the Criminal standard in Criminal trials.
The "larger isssue" ergo, is Not an issue.

`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There have been several democrats who have specifically said that a woman who accuses a man of sexual misconduct should be believed. That is guilty until proven innocent, which for the democrats applies to all men unless of course they are democrats like that Ellison guy in Minnesota who is a democrat running to be the next state AG.

Re the innocent black guys killed by police, I think it most cases the cop doesn't shoot somebody unless he/she feels threatened. It isn't a question of innocence or guilt, it's a question of self-defense. Cops do not decide innocence or guilt, their job is to stop any violence and investigate what happened and arrest anybody who ought to be arrested. Sometimes it turns out that the cop acted inappropriately and should not have shot the person, nobody is saying in every case the shooting was justified. But I would say that most conservatives do not approve of unwarranted police violence against blacks, that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

More importantly 99 percent of the "innocent" black man shot by police? A career criminal with a firearm, a Knife or some other weapon and he either refused the cops orders or actually attacked the cop.

 

[oldsoul]

You do not seem to have any interest in discussing the larger issue here. To be fair, I have little interest in discussing the smaller issue. So, I guess that's where we are. I have little interest in discussing what you wish to, and you have little/no interest in discussing what I wish to.

As to who's analogy is more relevant, I suppose that depends on which issue one wishes to discuss.

The problem here was always the Conflating of standards between the Kavanagh Nominee hearings and Criminal trials.

No one would disagree with the Criminal standard in Criminal trials.
The "larger isssue" ergo, is Not an issue.

`

So that I understand you correctly, please clarify this for me. Do you see it as a problem to publicly smear the reputation of ANYONE based on unsubstantiated claims, the details of which have changed multiple times?

That, my friend, is the larger issue. If you do not see that as a problem, then we have nothing left to say to each other. If you think it is okay to drag a person's reputation through the mud based on a claim that is not only unsubstantiated, but completely rebuked by multiple sources, and uncorroborated my anyone, then I think you have very little respect for your fellow human.