Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If we disenfranchise everyone who has ever said something stupid there would be no one left to vote, absolutely no one, not me, and judging by the above post, not you either.
No, it doesn't depend on how one personally defines treason. You are making my point. Basing your opinion on your own personal definitions is wrong. As is prejudging a case.
So you oppose the death penalty in all cases? And you would disenfranchise anyone who doesn't agree with you about that?
No Special Counsel ever "exonerates" anyone. That is beyond the scope of their powers. In other words saying Mueller, or any Special Counsel, didn't exonerate someone is either misunderstanding the powers of a Special Counsel or deliberately distorting things. Special Counsels indict or charge people. If they don't then the person is as before presumed innocent. Trump doesn't need any Special Counsel to exonerate him since if he isn't charged with a crime there is nothing to exonerate him from.
But he is charged with many many crimes. Very serious crimes.
That isn't a new thing. They gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Kissinger.
We were discussing Special Counsels. Separate indictments have nothing to do with them. But an accused person is also presumed innocent. The charges Trump faces are serious, precisely because they are politically based. And his political adversaries are trying to use the courts because they can't fight him in the ballot box, which is indeed quite serious. It is also another reason that when Democrats in a survey say they want him executed it is quite serious and troubling. And the Democrats that want him executed have no exoneration.
All that that phrase means is that guilt has to be established in court, not innocence. It means that not guilty is the default position if neither guilt nor innocence can be established in court, that the prosecutor has the burden of proof. Defendants are not viewed or treated as innocent. If they were, they wouldn't need lawyers.
The charges are based in the indictments handed down by grand juries after hearing and seeing evidence of crimes, which is what prevents purely politically motivated prosecutions from going forward.
Trump can't win an honest election. He was beaten decisively by Biden in the last election, when Trump had the incumbent advantage and Biden didn't. If they both run again in 2024, that will be reversed, plus Trump is dealing with the stigma of being a defendant and appearing increasingly confused, not to mention a booming economy with record low unemployment, inflation coming under control, gas prices down, and record high stock prices.
You're troubled that people who love their country and its Constitution want the man who defiled it executed by government he attacked? I'm not. That's justice. Like the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing thugs who attacked the Capitol for him, Trump fooled around and is now finding out.
Personally I am also opposed to the death penalty. But in the U.S. it is actually supported by a majority of people. Are you seriously suggestion that you would take away the right to vote from anyone who supports the death penalty?
"But an accused person is also presumed innocent."
That is not relevant to this discussion as the poll question specifies "if found guilty".
No, actually innocence does NOT have to be proven. Proving a negative is not reasonable nor possible. That's why innocence is presumed. Furthermore even the accused is presumed innocent according to the Law. The accused is not presumed guilty, he is presumed innocent. No, "most" people do not presume a charged person is guilty. Only the biased ones do. That is why persons who do presume the guilt of the charged are disqualified from being on juries.
Since I was responding to a particular other post, which raised the question, and not the OP, your point is invalid.