Allegations Against Candidates

[idav]

I've always been informed that people are innocent until proven guilty but yet people love to throw the word criminal around as if it means something against candidates with no criminal record.

Thing is both candidates have allegations against them. If we can call one a criminal then it suits the other just fine.

Also is sending emails from a gmail type server worse than sexual assault? If I worked at a place that didn't care about someones sexual assault but were harping on someones email practice on their phone I would be very disappointed.

Worst case scenario is everything everyone says about both candidates is true and criminal, in such a case is emails worse than serial sexual assault? These days does anyone not have work emails on their many private smart phones and devices? These days do guys typically have dozens of women alleging sexual assault against them? Are either of the candidates guilty before justice has their say? As far as I know justice had there say about the emails so how that means, guilty of treason or some such thing does not really stand in court. There is a candidate that will need to go to court for actual troubling allegations.

Thoughts?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's fair to venture the opinion that someone is a criminal.
We don't have the power to judge & sentence, so it's just opining.
But it is good to avoid over-using the accusation.

 

[idav]

I think it's fair to venture the opinion that someone is a criminal.
We don't have the power to judge & sentence, so it's just opining.
But it is good to avoid over-using the accusation.

Calling a person a sinner and even a criminal can easily go both ways but some people seem rather one sided when it comes to allegations of any sort.

And I think I stuck this in the wrong forum.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's the typical digging dirt and mudslinging.

Takes away from pertinent issues which frankly either candidate I suspect dosent really have a clue as to how to actually approach things by way of any real lasting plan.

I'll be glad when its over and the political dynamite just goes boom this election cycle.


Why do I think impeachment talk Will commence on any and all allegations regardless of the "winner".

 

[idav]

It's the typical digging dirt and mudslinging.

Seems unusually vindictive this season.

Takes away from pertinent issues which frankly either candidate I suspect dosent really have a clue as to how to actually approach things by way of any real lasting plan.

I don't think that of either candidate but both sides may be right about personal agendas, which IS rather typical of any politician.

I'll be glad when its over and the political dynamite just goes boom this election cycle.

I'll be happier when people aren't so quick to cast stones in such a one sided manner. That includes the likes of wikileaks.

I heard the recent South Park was about the entire town being hacked and emails releaesed. Sounds like good times lol.

Why do I think impeachment talk Will commence on any and all allegations regardless of the "winner".

I've wondered if we should just consider it a vice president vote, but the way actual crimes are treated once elected, it's probably stretching it. Also the congress and/or senate elected has to be willing to do stuff.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Innocent until proven guilty - only applies in the courts Im afraid...In life though it is perfectly natural and acceptable to make a judgement for the self and to then say that judgement out loud to others no problems at all - its exactly the way we ALWAYS communicate...lol...

Problems come if our judgement turns out to be off and yet we remain unwilling to change the mind - then stubborn arrogance may come into it and the sides are drawn battle commences so to speak... ALWAYS keep an open Mind Folks and ALWAYS speak that mind truthfully with confidence...

And that is the issue here - the reason WHY it seems so "vindictive" this time around - is because you have one candidate here - Trump - who is not bothered at all by political correctness - who simply does as I say above - speaks HIS MIND and the truth as he sees it....Thats all good and fine - I would much rather have THAT approach than deal with the other side its lies deceipt and cover ups.....Do you see - for one side blunt frank speaking is the new order of the day - but for the other side lies deceipt and manipulation (more of the same old school) - and THIS is why it gets so vindictive - trump just tells it bluntly pulls no punches and this forces clinton to respond in kind....HE LOVES it this way as this is how HE works - direct confrontational out in the open without shame or guilt it seems... Hes not afraid of the dirt or scandal at all...Clinton though - would much prefer secrecy again, duplicity again - manipulation again - she would much prefer to keep things exactly as they are now but trump does not seem to go for that politically correct BS at all and seems to confront it all the time....

Personally I hope HE wins - and I hope it doesnt change him too much...Yes of course he has flaws he is only human and we are ALL fools at times - but on the INTERNATIONAL SCENE he is the man you should pick for the job..It would make a real nice refreshing change - to have for example -Trump leading America and speaking and acting as HE does for I think he tells it like it really is and damn the consequences - and on the other side we have PUTIN who is very much LIKE trump in that he too doesnt seem to do the political bs at all and would rather just lay truth all out in the open plain for all to see...The rest of us watch this with baited breath as it really is a major WORLD turning point here..

If Trump wins America and Russia could become good friends in short order...BUT if clinton wins - she has used Russia as her scapegoat - tried to unite you all AGAINST Russia it seems without any good cause except of course it gives her a fan base and springboard platform - now thankfully Putin sees through this ploy and says openly he HOPES it is just her rhetoric to win votes - but - if she REALLY holds that viewpoint toward Russia and gets office and power then you guys AND the rest of us will be at war in short order.....For now Putin is giving her beneift of the doubt - would like to believe she is just doing some propaganda for her election - personally I believe she is doing it on purpose and may actually INTEND to lead you into a confrontation with Russia no matter what..

My point here is again - you can NOT TRUST ANY OF THEM of course - but at least with Trump he is far more willing to be open head on and deal with the consequences openly.. Much MUCH better than all that closed door chicanery they usually leave us with...Id like to see HIM as Putins opposite - that would make for world peace Im sure - open threats and both know the other WILL act so it will quickly become respectful stalemate again - compared to clinton - underhand - insidious - will lie and manipulate cover it up - and take you to war YET AGAIN on yet another ruse and FALSE PRETENSES.....

She represents more of the same Im afraid - same old same old - it DOES NOT WORK - that whole mindset is corrupt and self serving...Has been proved to be deceptive time after time after time....Dont think about personality and personal failing when you all vote - think about the much bigger issues that affect the WORLD - clinton and that whole clique that surround her uses Russia as a scapegoat to gain political influence at home - if that continues once she gets power then we are all screwed...Simple then - dont give her or that group any more power !!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Innocent until proven guilty - only applies in the courts Im afraid

"Innocent until proven guilty", I have never understood that phrase or how anyone could use it. The courts should use the honest phrase, "guilty until proven innocent"! If the first phrase is true, there are many "innocent" people in jail awaiting trial.

When someone is "suspected" of committing a crime, they are jailed until they are proven innocent, unless of course they "pay" hundreds or thousands of $$ to get out until they are proven innocent or guilty.

 

[Revoltingest]

Calling a person a sinner and even a criminal can easily go both ways but some people seem rather one sided when it comes to allegations of any sort.

And I think I stuck this in the wrong forum.

Hmmm....I didn't notice the forum.
You're right!

Tis very seldom that I call anyone a sinner.
And even then, it's a compliment.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

DJ; Think about it - if we presumed everybody guilty first - then I or anyone else could absolutely ruin your life with nothing more than a spoken pack of malicious lies..you know - I ACCUSE you of something and "authority" steps in and carts you off to prison on MY say so alone...That is RIDICULOUS dont you think..??.. You rot away in there for months while trial is prepared - lose job life family anyway and regardless of outcome life is FINISHED for you already and will need rebuilding - again just on someones say so and malicious intent..??...THINK about it...INNOCENT first - then you PROVE the guilt if you want to treat them that way..

When someone is "suspected" of committing a crime, they are jailed until they are proven innocent, unless of course they "pay" hundreds or thousands of $$ to get out until they are proven innocent or guilty.

Just because thats the way America does it does NOT mean its the correct or fair way to do it at all...Indeed - that way is totally UNFAIR - means basically that if you have no money then you are screwed should someone even lie about you with malicious intent - just ACCUSE you and you have no MONEY to defend yourself so off to prison whilst someone else comes sorts it out - again RIDICULOUS !!...As usual with America it always seems to be about MONEY and little else seems ot matter...

here is much more fair - I know as Ive been both sides of the criminal system...Accuse me here of a crime - and the info gets sent STRAIGHT AWAY to an INDEPENDANT panel - even before I leave the police station interview I will know for sure what is to happen - the crown prosecution service -THESE guys decide if there is enough to charge you or what type of offence it is -if there is a charge at all then they will bail you WITHOT CHARGE USUALLY and bail freely given to EVERYONE unless it is a recent repeat offence or there are very strong grounds for denial -always decided by a JUDGE around the issue of reliability and conformity rather than an issue of how much $$ they can give the system....

Even the hardened repeat offendors are treated as "innocent" to some degree - guilt is to be PROVED before you go incarcerating what may be an INNOCENT person...

 

[idav]

Hi Folks..

DJ; Think about it - if we presumed everybody guilty first - then I or anyone else could absolutely ruin your life with nothing more than a spoken pack of malicious lies..you know - I ACCUSE you of something and "authority" steps in and carts you off to prison on MY say so alone...That is RIDICULOUS dont you think..??.. You rot away in there for months while trial is prepared - lose job life family anyway and regardless of outcome life is FINISHED for you already and will need rebuilding - again just on someones say so and malicious intent..??...THINK about it...INNOCENT first - then you PROVE the guilt if you want to treat them that way..



Just because thats the way America does it does NOT mean its the correct or fair way to do it at all...Indeed - that way is totally UNFAIR - means basically that if you have no money then you are screwed should someone even lie about you with malicious intent - just ACCUSE you and you have no MONEY to defend yourself so off to prison whilst someone else comes sorts it out - again RIDICULOUS !!...As usual with America it always seems to be about MONEY and little else seems ot matter...

here is much more fair - I know as Ive been both sides of the criminal system...Accuse me here of a crime - and the info gets sent STRAIGHT AWAY to an INDEPENDANT panel - even before I leave the police station interview I will know for sure what is to happen - the crown prosecution service -THESE guys decide if there is enough to charge you or what type of offence it is -if there is a charge at all then they will bail you WITHOT CHARGE USUALLY and bail freely given to EVERYONE unless it is a recent repeat offence or there are very strong grounds for denial -always decided by a JUDGE around the issue of reliability and conformity rather than an issue of how much $$ they can give the system....

Even the hardened repeat offendors are treated as "innocent" to some degree - guilt is to be PROVED before you go incarcerating what may be an INNOCENT person...

Right so innocent til proven guilty, I like it. We would have to see if any allegations reveal any actual crimes.

 

[idav]

"Innocent until proven guilty", I have never understood that phrase or how anyone could use it. The courts should use the honest phrase, "guilty until proven innocent"! If the first phrase is true, there are many "innocent" people in jail awaiting trial.

When someone is "suspected" of committing a crime, they are jailed until they are proven innocent, unless of course they "pay" hundreds or thousands of $$ to get out until they are proven innocent or guilty.

Correct, for more heinous allegations people may not afford the freedom of remaining innocent until trial. I see that as an issue.

 

[fantome profane]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a precept intended to limit the power of the state to impose punishment. It does not mean that it is logical to conclude a person is innocent when neither guilt nor innocence have been proven.

 

[idav]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a precept intended to limit the power of the state to impose punishment. It does not mean that it is logical to conclude a person is innocent when neither guilt nor innocence have been proven.

It follows if the person is really guilty and the jury still finds them innocent. As for actual guilt and innocence often times only God knows.

 

[suncowiam]

I've always been informed that people are innocent until proven guilty but yet people love to throw the word criminal around as if it means something against candidates with no criminal record.

Thing is both candidates have allegations against them. If we can call one a criminal then it suits the other just fine.

Also is sending emails from a gmail type server worse than sexual assault? If I worked at a place that didn't care about someones sexual assault but were harping on someones email practice on their phone I would be very disappointed.

Worst case scenario is everything everyone says about both candidates is true and criminal, in such a case is emails worse than serial sexual assault? These days does anyone not have work emails on their many private smart phones and devices? These days do guys typically have dozens of women alleging sexual assault against them? Are either of the candidates guilty before justice has their say? As far as I know justice had there say about the emails so how that means, guilty of treason or some such thing does not really stand in court. There is a candidate that will need to go to court for actual troubling allegations.

Thoughts?

Fair is fair, right?

We assume both are guilty for their alleged crime and send them both to their corners for a timeout. Now, we all can vote for Gary Johnson.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi Folks..

DJ; Think about it - if we presumed everybody guilty first - then I or anyone else could absolutely ruin your life with nothing more than a spoken pack of malicious lies..you know - I ACCUSE you of something and "authority" steps in and carts you off to prison on MY say so alone...That is RIDICULOUS dont you think..??.. You rot away in there for months while trial is prepared - lose job life family anyway and regardless of outcome life is FINISHED for you already and will need rebuilding - again just on someones say so and malicious intent..??...THINK about it...INNOCENT first - then you PROVE the guilt if you want to treat them that way..



Just because thats the way America does it does NOT mean its the correct or fair way to do it at all...Indeed - that way is totally UNFAIR - means basically that if you have no money then you are screwed should someone even lie about you with malicious intent - just ACCUSE you and you have no MONEY to defend yourself so off to prison whilst someone else comes sorts it out - again RIDICULOUS !!...As usual with America it always seems to be about MONEY and little else seems ot matter...

here is much more fair - I know as Ive been both sides of the criminal system...Accuse me here of a crime - and the info gets sent STRAIGHT AWAY to an INDEPENDANT panel - even before I leave the police station interview I will know for sure what is to happen - the crown prosecution service -THESE guys decide if there is enough to charge you or what type of offence it is -if there is a charge at all then they will bail you WITHOT CHARGE USUALLY and bail freely given to EVERYONE unless it is a recent repeat offence or there are very strong grounds for denial -always decided by a JUDGE around the issue of reliability and conformity rather than an issue of how much $$ they can give the system....

Even the hardened repeat offendors are treated as "innocent" to some degree - guilt is to be PROVED before you go incarcerating what may be an INNOCENT person...

Thats the better route certainly to take.

The court of public opinion almost always travels the converse.

Maybe we need that two way crucible of innocent vs guilty.

 

[idav]

Fair is fair, right?

We assume both are guilty for their alleged crime and send them both to their corners for a timeout. Now, we all can vote for Gary Johnson.

That or just let the congress sort it out the mess. We could be optimistic and just assume allegations are false or will end in aquittals. Though lawsuits are a different matter which lots of times get settled kinda hush hush like.

 

[fantome profane]

It follows if the person is really guilty and the jury still finds them innocent. As for actual guilt and innocence often times only God knows.

Juries don't find people innocent. They either find them guilty, or they don't find them guilty.

But the point I really want to make is that sometimes in life we have to make judgements, and the precept of innocent until proven guilty does not always work. Would you leave your child with someone if you have a suspicion that they are a pedophile, but no actual proof?

 

[idav]

Juries don't find people innocent. They either find them guilty, or they don't find them guilty.

But the point I really want to make is that sometimes in life we have to make judgements, and the precept of innocent until proven guilty does not always work. Would you leave your child with someone if you have a suspicion that they are a pedophile, but no actual proof?

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but no, wouldn't have left my kid with the late Michael Jackson. For some reason sexual allegations tend to get around the law and become only subject to civil law. Always wonder how that works, like with Oj being called "not guilty" but then having to pay up to the family of the victims. The law would consider that innocent since never proven guilty.

 

[idav]

It is interesting that Trump is so quick to consider someone "guilty as hell" when he loves to claim all allegations of sexual assault as non-sense.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-guilty-attorney/2016/06/02/id/732063/

Thats why I'm of the mind to either consider them both guilty or both innocent until further inquiry can shed light on the subjects. Either way we have two candidates with their hands full.

What being "guilty as hell" really means for using a server equivalent to gmail seems pretty ludicrous that any charges would accompany such a thing and appalling that it should be considered anything close to being a serial sexual assaulter..