This is a more civil response, in the interest of genuine discussion. I was a drunk asshole that first time around and you didn’t deserve that.
Ok, first and foremost, I admit that I don’t have direct evidence of him doing that exact thing. I’ll also admit that I’m not even going to bother looking for any, because it doesn’t change my original point anyways, which is this:
It’s foolish to assume there’s zero evidence when there’s such a clear cut pattern of behavior. There’s Modus Operandi.
We’re talking about someone who is infamously corrupt. He’s been impeached twice. He’s on the hook for almost 100 convictions. It’s been established in court that he’s committed tons of fraud. There’s a plethora of record of him being disingenuous, deceitful, and carries an absolute disregard for the law.
It’s so egregious that anyone questioning this pattern of behavior must be either amazingly ignorant of current events or simply arguing in bad faith. Which is something trolls actively do.
Now, I’m not a prosecutor trying to charge of him of this specific crime. I’m not even trying assert it’s genuine validity. This is a post on a website. I don’t need the same level of certainty as a jury would, since I’m not in actively making that case.
What I AM saying is that it’s either ridiculously ignorant or maliciously disingenuous to apply the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in this discussion. There’s a huge enough pattern of behavior to give this some plausibility.
Is that equivalent to concrete evidence of this specific crime? Again, no. But to sit there and argue innocence when there’s such a clear pattern of behavior is insultingly disingenuous.
This is a more civil response, in the interest of genuine discussion. I was a drunk asshole that first time around and you didn’t deserve that.
Ok, first and foremost, I admit that I don’t have direct evidence of him doing that exact thing. I’ll also admit that I’m not even going to bother looking for any, because it doesn’t change my original point anyways, which is this:
It’s foolish to assume there’s zero evidence when there’s such a clear cut pattern of behavior. There’s Modus Operandi.
We’re talking about someone who is infamously corrupt. He’s been impeached twice. He’s on the hook for almost 100 convictions. It’s been established in court that he’s committed tons of fraud. There’s a plethora of record of him being disingenuous, deceitful, and carries an absolute disregard for the law.
It’s so egregious that anyone questioning this pattern of behavior must be either amazingly ignorant of current events or simply arguing in bad faith. Which is something trolls actively do.
Now, I’m not a prosecutor trying to charge of him of this specific crime. I’m not even trying assert it’s genuine validity. This is a post on a website. I don’t need the same level of certainty as a jury would, since I’m not in actively making that case.
What I AM saying is that it’s either ridiculously ignorant or maliciously disingenuous to apply the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” in this discussion. There’s a huge enough pattern of behavior to give this some plausibility.
Is that equivalent to concrete evidence of this specific crime? Again, no. But to sit there and argue innocence when there’s such a clear pattern of behavior is insultingly disingenuous.
There you go, a fair response.
deleted by creator
But why the double standard? He’s certainly not staying silent, even with all the gag orders.
deleted by creator
Fair point, assuming that you’re acknowledging that his accusations are also not right.
Can you claim that with legitimate certainty though? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And that’s still not accounting for the evidence of all the other similar terrible things he’s done. Again, Modus Operandi.
deleted by creator
That’s a great point. Thanks for the civil discussion.