1 in 50 Democrats want Donald Trump executed

[We Never Know]

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.

Take repubs. Without any evidence they think Biden is guilty of shady dealings with his son.

But even with evidence they think Trump isn't guilty of anything.

Its guilty or innocent by bias.

 

[Firenze]

That is according to a Rasmussen poll. The poll also found:
44% of likely voters think former President Trump is guilty for crimes related to the January 6th 2020 events and want him to be in prison,
7% of them think he should be imprisoned for life, and
3% want him exiled.

Among Democrats:
72% want him in prison,
12% think it should be for life, and
2% of Democrats want him executed.

Democrats Want Harsh Punishment for Trump

We live in troubling times.

Reminds me of that loving Christian bumper sticker I saw that said “Silly Liberal, my God is why I don’t kill you.”

Troubling times indeed….

 

[metis]

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.

Maybe if you bothered to think about what I wrote, you wouldn't have wasted time writing the above. It was Trump-- you know, the guy you keep defending no matter what he says or does-- who claimed the Mueller "exonerated" him.

 

[metis]

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.

LOL! It is not I who is "prejudging a case" as I never said nor implied Trump was guilty other than the NY case.

BTW, whaddya think of his recent anti-Semitic and racist remarks that even some Pubs are having trouble with? What about his first wife's [Ivana] statements that he read NAZI propaganda on a regular basis before turning in? He's now using such terms used by NAZI propaganda, and yet that doesn't seem to bother you one iota. Even read any copies of Der Sturmer?

 

[Shaul]

I don't know what world you live in but when a person is charged, jailed, has to pay to get out(bond), and have conditions on their bond that sure doesn't scream innocent to me.

And NOW you are attempting to change the circumstances. We were discussing someone that was only accused of a crime, not a person that has been tried and convicted.

Legally its supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but that's not how it is anymore IMO.

Is not only legally supposed to be innocent, it actually IS innocence until proven guilty. And that how it still is legally irrespective of your opinion.

In many cases everyone knows the person is guilty, it just hasen't been proven in court yet.

No that isn't true. You can't and don't speak for "everyone". Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is still valid.

 

[Shaul]

Maybe if you bothered to think about what I wrote, you wouldn't have wasted time writing the above. It was Trump-- you know, the guy you keep defending no matter what he says or does-- who claimed the Mueller "exonerated" him.

I have seen a statement (tweet) by Trump reading "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!" and one where is asked, "“How many times do I have to be exonerated before they stop?” but I have not seen a statement he made where he said Mueller exonerated him. Those are different things. If you have a citation where Trump said that Mueller himself exonerated him, provide it. If not, stop regurgitating straw men.

Furthermore, I am not "defending Trump" I am pointing out the errors you are making. Again, that is not the same thing.

 

[fantome profane]

Is not only legally supposed to be innocent, it actually IS innocence until proven guilty.

Utter nonsense. Reality is reality. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal maxim, not reality.

If I kill someone, they are dead. They don't get to be alive until I am proven guilty. And the dead person will not come back to life if I am acquitted.

Donald Trump did what he did, he did everything he did and he did not do anything he did not do. Courts of law are not courts of reality. They decide matters of law. Reality is reality.

 

[Shaul]

Utter nonsense. Reality is reality. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal maxim, not reality.

If I kill someone, they are dead. They don't get to be alive until I am proven guilty. And the dead person will not come back to life if I am acquitted.

Donald Trump did what he did, he did everything he did and he did not do anything he did not do. Courts of law are not courts of reality. They decide matters of law. Reality is reality.

Allow me to phrase it better. Not only is it legally supposed to be presumed innocent, it actually legally IS innocence until proven guilty. Thanks.

 

[fantome profane]

Allow me to phrase it better. Is not only is it legally supposed to be presumed innocent, it actually legally IS innocence until proven guilty. Thanks.

Legally. But in reality -

That is reality. Deal with it.

 

[McBell]

And NOW you are attempting to change the circumstances. We were discussing someone that was only accused of a crime, not a person that has been tried and convicted.

Please be so kind as to present a case where after being convicted of a crime, they were let out on bond.

 

[Shaul]

Legally. But in reality -

View attachment 85865

That is reality. Deal with it.

Is that a picture of Joe Biden's former office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C., or in his personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware? I can deal with that.

 

[fantome profane]

Is that a picture of Joe Biden's former office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C., or in his personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware? I can deal with that.

But you are unable to see the other. Selective blindness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that a picture of Joe Biden's former office at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C., or in his personal residence in Wilmington, Delaware? I can deal with that.

That was where Trump illegally kept papers that did not belong to him.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

Are you seriously suggestion that you would take away the right to vote from anyone who supports the death penalty?

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please be so kind as to present a case where after being convicted of a crime, they were let out on bond.

There are such cases. But the accused has to show a very good cause for bond, and it does not tend to apply for serious crimes. I would say that Trump has been accused of very serious crimes:

Getting Bail During the Appeal Process

A judge might grant post-conviction bail if the defendant was not convicted of a serious crime and is not likely to flee or tamper with the court process.

www.justia.com

 

[Shaul]

Please be so kind as to present a case where after being convicted of a crime, they were let out on bond.

It happens often. People are often released on bail bonds while awaiting trial, or after conviction and awaiting sentencing or during case appeal. Why should I need to provide examples? What are you really asking?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It happens often. People are often released on bail bonds while awaiting trial, or after conviction and awaiting sentencing or during case appeal. Why should I need to provide examples? What are you really asking?

No, not often. And not for serious crimes. See my link.

 

[Shaul]

But you are unable to see the other. Selective blindness.

That doesn't make any sense. I haven't been blind to anything.

 

[fantome profane]

That doesn't make any sense. I haven't been blind to anything.

How would you know?

Perfect eyesight.

If thy left eye offends they, pluck it out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Take repubs. Without any evidence they think Biden is guilty of shady dealings with his son.

Do they actually think this?

The vibe I get is that this is about "post-truth politics" - they're making the argument because it's expedient for their goal, not because they think it's true. The truth of it is irrelevant to them.

That's my impression, anyway.