Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Correction : "Beautiful" Ted Cruz. Trump no longer calls him Lyin' Ted.

An example of reconciliation unknown in the LCM.

[awareness]

Christian's should sign uo :

Flip Congress for the Common Good

"We’re ready to shift the national conversation from fear to faith and flip Congress for the common good. Will you join the revolution?"

"Jesus called us to love the world. Not Christians, not us here at Vote Common Good, but the whole world. Whole. World."

https://www.votecommongood.com/tour-speakers-musicians/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christian's should sign uo :

Flip Congress for the Common Good

"We’re ready to shift the national conversation from fear to faith and flip Congress for the common good. Will you join the revolution?"

"Jesus called us to love the world. Not Christians, not us here at Vote Common Good, but the whole world. Whole. World."

This is just a bunch of nonsense to fool the ignorant. Here is their mission statement:

Vote Common Good is the mission of being in the here and now of this historical moment.

We want to dislodge control of Congress from the Republican Party on November 6th, because we believe that this would most directly affect common good in our country. That’s our chosen strategy for this midterm. For another election, we may have another strategy, irrespective of a party.

This has always been the Socialist message of the Left. "Hey let's give control of Congress to the Left, since they're so kind, honest, loving, and decent." That's what Pelosi and Schumer told us.

If you really want to understand the Left, looking past their many deceptions, you need to watch their "agents of change" -- the masked ANTIFA/BLM/Occupy types attacking innocent people, shutting down free speech, and destroying property.

With Capitalism, we do have rich and poor people. With Socialism we only have poor people.

Yes, let's flip Congress, promote Socialism, love everybody, and become like Venzuela!

[zeek]

Yesterday, 01:26 PM #4577 [QUOTE=Ohio;81050]I never claimed Kavanaugh was "innocent until proven guilty" regarding his SCOTUS nomination.

09-29-2018, 12:06 PM #4324 [QUOTE=Ohio;80117] The Democrats never gave him the presumption of innocence. They demanded more than perfection.

09-26-2018, 06:55 PM #4295 [QUOTE=Ohio;80005]No more justice here? No more presumption of innocence?

[zeek]

In my 68 years I've never seen a president stoke division and violence like Trump does.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

In my 68 years I've never seen a president stoke division and violence like Trump does.

Yer a funny guy. Didn't you live thru the riots of the 60's?

[Ohio]

Bad day for the Left's Legendary Lawyer and Savior Michael Avenatti.

The Senate Judiciary Chairman has 2 referrals to the DOJ regarding him.

Yes, zeek, he has the presumption of innocence until he is convicted for deceiving Congress.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yer a funny guy. Didn't you live thru the riots of the 60's?

Neither Johnson nor Nixon intentionally called for division and violence the way Trump does.

[Ohio]

[QUOTE=zeek;81071]Yesterday, 01:26 PM #4577 [QUOTE=Ohio;81050]I never claimed Kavanaugh was "innocent until proven guilty" regarding his SCOTUS nomination.

09-29-2018, 12:06 PM #4324 [QUOTE=Ohio;80117] The Democrats never gave him the presumption of innocence. They demanded more than perfection.

09-26-2018, 06:55 PM #4295

Originally Posted by Ohio

No more justice here? No more presumption of innocence?

Big difference here, my friend.

Criminal courts require that the indicted are "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law.

But in the court of public opinion, "the presumption of innocence" is required at least until the facts can be brought forth, especially in so-called SCOTUS "job interviews."

Sorry, zeek, but I'm continually amazed at how readily gullible you are to believe the lie. If God and His word are the source of wisdom, then what will forsaking God and His word leave you with?

[zeek]

[QUOTE=Ohio;81075][QUOTE=zeek;81071]Yesterday, 01:26 PM #4577 [QUOTE=Ohio;81050]I never claimed Kavanaugh was "innocent until proven guilty" regarding his SCOTUS nomination.

09-29-2018, 12:06 PM #4324

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Democrats never gave him the presumption of innocence. They demanded more than perfection.

09-26-2018, 06:55 PM #4295
Big difference here, my friend.

Criminal courts require that the indicted are "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law.

But in the court of public opinion, "the presumption of innocence" is required at least until the facts can be brought forth, especially in so-called SCOTUS "job interviews."

Sorry, zeek, but I'm continually amazed at how readily gullible you are to believe the lie. If God and His word are the source of wisdom, then what will forsaking God and His word leave you with?

You're the one who used the presumption of innocence to defend Kavanaugh while parroting Trump and then denied that you had and now are giving your explanation of your confused thinking about it. You apparently consider your thinking a product of God's wisdom which would be if it weren't so .

[Ohio]

[QUOTE=zeek;81077][QUOTE=Ohio;81075]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're the one who used the presumption of innocence to defend Kavanaugh while parroting Trump and then denied that you had and now are giving your explanation of your confused thinking about it.

You don't like my explanation? What else is new.

Let me repeat.

The presumption of innocence is part of the American experience, reaching every part of our culture. It is needed now more than ever with this evil, crooked media we have. This is designed to protect the innocent from evil lies and false witnesses, as in Brett Kavanaugh's and Clarence Thomas's situations.

This presumption of innocence does NOT mean that someone cannot be found guilty in the court of public opinion. That will be determined by fair-minded individuals as evidence comes forward. In the case of that Lousy-Ford, she either lied or pled ignorance to every detail of the event for 36 years, but knew for sure that it was Kavanaugh. She had zero corroboration of any evidence whatsoever. It says a whole lot about your character when you are willing to believe such people.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the judicial standard for conviction according to the various thresholds defined by law, i.e. "the burden of proof," e.g. "beyond a reasonable doubt, a preponderance of evidence," etc.

Apparently the media has robbed you of this little bit of common sense "wisdom." And you are almost 70 yo?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Democrats never gave him the presumption of innocence. They demanded more than perfection.

The presumption of innocence technically does not apply to nomination confirmations. The question is not whether the person should or should not be jailed, or even just put on parole. It is whether he should be given a job — in this case a lifetime job on the Supreme Court.

If character matters for a president who can only give us grief for 8 years, then it should really matter for a SCOTUS judge. Too many questions could be enough. There is no bright line of "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "more likely than not." It is not unreasonable to withhold confirmation just because there were too many unanswered (or inadequately answered) questions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The presumption of innocence technically does not apply to nomination confirmations. The question is not whether the person should or should not be jailed, or even just put on parole. It is whether he should be given a job — in this case a lifetime job on the Supreme Court.

If character matters for a president who can only give us grief for 8 years, then it should really matter for a SCOTUS judge. Too many questions could be enough. There is no bright line of "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "more likely than not." It is not unreasonable to withhold confirmation just because there were too many unanswered (or inadequately answered) questions.

Are you kidding, or has TDS just gripped your sanity?

The presumption of innocence applies to every area of life! What if I started making accusations about you on this forum? What if I walk into a church and accuse the pastor? What if I walk into the police station and accuse the police? Or listen to one child tattle/fib about another? Only the naivest of people would believe such accusations without corroborative proof. No, my friend, the presumption of innocence is the bedrock of a free world.

I heard that some are coming forward with allegations against Muller. It seems like special prosecutors are also appointed for life. Where do you draw your "bright line" here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The presumption of innocence technically does not apply to nomination confirmations. The question is not whether the person should or should not be jailed, or even just put on parole. It is whether he should be given a job — in this case a lifetime job on the Supreme Court.

If character matters for a president who can only give us grief for 8 years, then it should really matter for a SCOTUS judge. Too many questions could be enough. There is no bright line of "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "more likely than not." It is not unreasonable to withhold confirmation just because there were too many unanswered (or inadequately answered) questions.

I agree with this. However, I feel that this should not be a license to smear or falsely accuse, which is clearly what ultimately happened with Kavanaugh. If Feinstein had raised this concern in the closed session it could have all been answered and investigated without slandering. Instead we got some woman accusing him of being involved in a gang rape in the media. So he was unable to defend himself, it wasn't done in the hearing, lowering her risk of perjury, yet was clearly damaging to Kavanaugh and his family. Feinstein should be held accountable for this. Now if this woman is held accountable a Supreme court justice will have to take her to court for slander. That in turn creates a whole new media circus. Feinstein should be held accountable for creating this travesty.

It seems to me that public comments and concerns should be left to those that have been verified with 2 or more witnesses, FBI investigative conclusions, etc. and unverified charges should be limited to closed door sessions.

Just as we should be holding our elected officials and nominees to important positions to a higher standard than "reasonable doubt" we also should not be ignorant that there will be political forces that wish to defeat the nominee/ candidate by any means necessary. For example, this case with the women being bribed to accuse Mueller of sexual harassment:
Robert Mueller: Woman targeted by inept plot to bring down US special counsel reveals how it rapidly fell apart

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

The presumption of innocence technically does not apply to nomination confirmations. The question is not whether the person should or should not be jailed, or even just put on parole. It is whether he should be given a job — in this case a lifetime job on the Supreme Court.

If character matters for a president who can only give us grief for 8 years, then it should really matter for a SCOTUS judge. Too many questions could be enough. There is no bright line of "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "more likely than not." It is not unreasonable to withhold confirmation just because there were too many unanswered (or inadequately answered) questions.

If you review this thread you'll see that Mister Ohio argues for and against the presumption of innocence depending on whether or not the principal advances his extreme right-wing position in a particular context. So he argued for the presumption of innocence in the case of Kavanaugh and argues against it in the case of Andrew Gillum. I agree with you that it is a legal right that applies to the accused in a criminal trial. Neither Kavanaugh nor Gilliam have been charged with criminal offenses so the presumption of innocence is irrelevant to their situations at this time. When Mr Ohio misapplies the principal he is just parroting his idol Donald Trump. You will recall that that kind of mimicry was encouraged in the local church where the idol was Witness Lee. Habits learned by the herd die hard.