• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Bottom For How Low Trump Will Go

It is just the upcoming Excuse seed being planted for when he loses in November, "we do not know how, but the Dems cheated, how else can one explain Trump not winning" :lamo


And the thinly veiled threat that his loss would lea to violence is right of the Mein Kampf playbook.
 
It is just the upcoming Excuse seed being planted for when he loses in November, "we do not know how, but the Dems cheated, how else can one explain Trump not winning" :lamo

Election fraud is not funny.
There are many verified provable instances where election fraud has been perpetrated. On both sides but far and above mostly on the Progressive side.
In fact, "winning" for Progressives is based on lies, cheating and propaganda and a majority of Americas are now aware of it.
It worked for 'Progressives" in Venezuela and is working here in America due to racism, hedonism, deception and most importantly, pure ignorance.

But "funny"? No it is not.
 
I definitely know who only pretends to care about crime, illiteracy and poverty in the black community and when: republicans during any elections season (and all the time in between for that matter). If dems fail to deliver on promises to help improve the lot of these constituents they certainly have the help of republicans who are quite eager and proud doing everything they can to block or sabotage the efforts and them come around at times like this and gloat about the failures. If there's distrust of and disappointment in the dems by some in the black community it pales in magnitude with the disgust it has with republicans who come around and tell them how stupid they are for voting for those dems. And you people really think blacks don't see through it. I guess you're so used to insulting them you can't even tell you're doing it.


Get off the "Republican" vs "Democrat" ignorance high horse.
Those two parties today are working together.

America is facing a war of classes. Those who are massively wealthy vs those who must work for a living.

People who still cling to "Republican" vs "Democrat" are either very low informed or purposely deceiving. btw...they are also the ones calling the racism card most often.
 
Well, actually it had been known before he was first elected to the Presidency that he had probably been corrupt. But he was elected anyway and it was not until he had done another proof of character in Watergate that the process began to remove him. Before the first election it was like now with Ms Teflon.

And thinking "In dubio!" is quite false. Do you understand why?

You failed to address my question. I wonder why. As far as your in dubio reference goes, it appears you don't know what it means. At least it doesn't make any sense in this context. Nixon had certainly earned his "Tricky" nickname well before he became president but he was never put through the kind of witch-hunt process that Clinton has been under for the past quarter century. At some point, people like you should give up on the idea that there's still something there when even her most vile and persistent and dedicated enemies have never been able to come up with it. It begins to look like the evil secret is on the other side of the table. Please don't deliberately misinterpret that as my saying she's squeaky clean by any means. But she's obviously not anywhere close to the villain you'd like her to be.
 
Last edited:
Get off the "Republican" vs "Democrat" ignorance high horse.
Those two parties today are working together.

America is facing a war of classes. Those who are massively wealthy vs those who must work for a living.

People who still cling to "Republican" vs "Democrat" are either very low informed or purposely deceiving. btw...they are also the ones calling the racism card most often.


Yeah, yeah, yeah....arglebargle. Got it. "Elementary, my dear Watson." Are you one of those Bernie Bros who think you're the first one to discover this? Or, much worse and absurd, someone who really thinks the fascism of Der Drumpfer is the way out?
 
You failed to address my question. I wonder why. As far as your in dubio reference goes, it appears you don't know what it means. At least it doesn't make any sense in this context. Nixon had certainly earned his "Tricky" nickname well before he became president but he was never put through the kind of witch-hunt process that Clinton has been under for the past quarter century. At some point, people like you should give up on the idea that there's still something there when even her most vile and persistent and dedicated enemies have never been able to come up with it. It begins to look like the evil secret is on the other side of the table. Please don't deliberately misinterpret that as my saying she's squeaky clean by any means. But she's obviously not anywhere close to the villain you'd like her to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqjwBDH-vhY

PS: Maybe you should think about the "in dubio" a little more.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqjwBDH-vhY

PS: Maybe you should think about the "in dubio" a little more.

Still isn't clear how you connect the concept of presumption of innocence to the Checker's Speech. Nixon never was on trial (well, I guess only in the sense of the "court of public opinion"). There wasn't even any kind of official inquiry. Nixon's predicament in 1952 was nothing at all like what HRC has been through for the past 25 years.
 
Still isn't clear how you connect the concept of presumption of innocence to the Checker's Speech. Nixon never was on trial (well, I guess only in the sense of the "court of public opinion"). There wasn't even any kind of official inquiry. Nixon's predicament in 1952 was nothing at all like what HRC has been through for the past 25 years.

Exactly. And as in the Clinton cases the reason is that because of in dubio nobody believes that they could be prosecuted. But in dubio does not apply to allocating power to someone to perform the business of government and bestowing them with power over oneself. If there is doubt and suspicion that is a very strong argument not to vote for such a person. As a matter of fact, the situation must be desperat to do so unless one is naively irresponsible. It is far too dangerous stuff to take that kind of risk. That was the lesson Nixon tought us and that man seem to have forgotten or never learned it.
 
Exactly. And as in the Clinton cases the reason is that because of in dubio nobody believes that they could be prosecuted. But in dubio does not apply to allocating power to someone to perform the business of government and bestowing them with power over oneself. If there is doubt and suspicion that is a very strong argument not to vote for such a person. As a matter of fact, the situation must be desperat to do so unless one is naively irresponsible. It is far too dangerous stuff to take that kind of risk. That was the lesson Nixon tought us and that man seem to have forgotten or never learned it.

Okay (I guess) but it still seems like you haven't quite decided whether to use (or not) the legal concept of in dubio pro reo to politics.
 
And the thinly veiled threat that his loss would lea to violence is right of the Mein Kampf playbook.

There are similarities, but I would venture Revelations is closer.
 
Election fraud is not funny.
There are many verified provable instances where election fraud has been perpetrated. On both sides but far and above mostly on the Progressive side.
In fact, "winning" for Progressives is based on lies, cheating and propaganda and a majority of Americas are now aware of it.
It worked for 'Progressives" in Venezuela and is working here in America due to racism, hedonism, deception and most importantly, pure ignorance.

But "funny"? No it is not.

The Dems do not have to cheat, all they have to do is sit back and let Trump open his mouth time and time again. Trump will lose because he is Trump, good grief the Whitehouse should have been a given with Hillary running, what the hell is wrong with you Repubs, you could not get one good candidate that could have won hands down, Really? Repubs are no smarter than Dems, in fact I think the Dems have managed to make themselves look good when compared to the circus going on in the GOP. How very disappointing.
 
Translation: if whites do it--no problem; if blacks do it, it just shows their basic tendency to violence. In fact, blacks don't even have to lay a finger on anyone to get tagged for being violent. Case in point is that picture one of your number posted of those two NBPP mopes back in 2008 all dressed up in black and looking scarrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy. I want to thank you for the ever predictable justification whites have always ready to use.

No...translation: You don't know what you're talking about. You compare singular incidents with mass riots, mobs, and attacks. Go take your fantasy world somewhere else. The violence is coming from the left.

 
Okay (I guess) but it still seems like you haven't quite decided whether to use (or not) the legal concept of in dubio pro reo to politics.

Oh, I am sorry that that was not clear. I have decided. In dubio protects the suspect before the law and incriminates him in an election. That is because the purpose of the two activities is very is very different. In the first it is about protecting the individual against the State. In the second it is about protecting the commons against individuals' potential misuse of the power the citizenry must install in those it requires to do the jobs of of the public. As the amount of power involved can harm citizens considerably the measure applied to candidates must be high. Much higher even than that desired in a CEO of a multinational. Any doubt concerning experience or character should be a knockout and exclude such a person from electability. This is a de facto reverse of the in dubio principal in law.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I am sorry that that was not clear. I have decided. In dubio protects the suspect before the law and incriminates him in an election. That is because the purpose of the two activities is very is very different. In the first it is about protecting the individual against the State. In the second it is about protecting the commons against individuals' potential misuse of the power the citizenry must install in those it requires to do the jobs of of the public. As the amount of power involved can harm citizens considerably the measure applied to candidates must be high. Much higher even than that desired in a CEO of a multinational. Any doubt concerning experience or character should be a knockout and exclude such a person from electability. This is a de facto reverse of the in dubio principal in law.

Okay, I understand but I'd have thought the self-evident nature of the vast difference between a legal process and the political process wouldn't have needed this argument. I mean, of course we don't have to apply a rigorous legal test on deciding whether we believe or trust someone when we're considering voting for him or her.
 
Sorry...riot police aren't called out to stop anti-Hillary or (when he was still running) ant-Sanders mobs of criminals. Not equivalent at all.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have been. But, too bad for you, sheriff deputies and other security were called to take protesters out. Of course, most of the they didn't bother to protect the peaceful protesters from the hysterical mob of fascists surrounding them.
 
Back
Top Bottom