*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4160 on: July 25, 2019, 03:16:40 PM »
Quote
[quote authttps://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.4140hor=Lord Dave link=topic=5536.msg197045#msg197045 date=1564053857]
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.
It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 
You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?
Trump is consistently persecuted...

Where have you been?

You are here persecuting him on a daily basis. 
If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime. Not until he was removed from office.
That is laughable on a few points:
1) He isn't the complete moron or monster you or others claim him to be;
B) My mom is dead; and,
III) Despite the rhetoric, anyone in the US can be charged with a crime. You are here charging him with a crime. 
Quote
And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.
You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.
Hillary does stand exonerated.

What part of "ALL GOD'S CHILDREN," was lost?

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.


Forgive me, but I just have to point this out (because it's taking merit out of the debate), but there is a lot of 'getting hung up on symantecs' going on here. Sometimes being pedantic is just plain silly. And if you're going to be "technical", shouldn't you be so in all cases, and not just when it suits you?

Edit:

Quote
You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?

For example: Based on context, my assumption is that LD meant prosecuted, not persecuted.... but if you wanted to take this technically, as a computer would, and not a human being capable of understanding human error, then you would be correct.... Trump has been continually persecuted, albeit by his own design - he means to be persecuted.

« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 03:51:24 PM by timterroo »
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4161 on: July 25, 2019, 03:22:34 PM »
As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:
exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4162 on: July 25, 2019, 04:31:02 PM »
Trump could supposedly be charged with obstruction of justice, a very vague term that Bill Clinton was impeached for, but subsequently found not guilty on all counts. The fact that the best Mueller can do is a "well, sure, I could technically charge him after he leaves office" is a clear indication that he's got nothing on Trump and Trump will never be charged with anything. That this is the very best the media can cling to is great news for Trump 2020 since it means there's nothing more serious floating around.

Considering it takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, Trump could never be found guilty regardless of the crime or evidence.

Also: it shows alot that an innocent president would obstruct justice on an investigation into crimes he didn't commit.

A person hasn't obstructed justice until they have been convicted of doing so in a court of law.
This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.

Quote
You don't have sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed anything.
We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.


Quote
The entire purpose of these hearings is to try to convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Luckily, the only people falling for it are people that decided they weren't voting for Trump several years ago. This is more-or-less what Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh. Just replace Mueller with a crying woman and boom, the court of public opinion is ever that much more obvious.
Umm.... duh?  Look, I agree that no opinions were changed.  This was, as you said, an attempt to change opinions in the public opinions court, but no evidence is going to change the opinion of the Republicans who support him.  If the report (and Mr. Mueller) found that Trump had worked with Russia, helped steal e-mails, and lied about everything to win the election... he wouldn't lose a single vote.  Because that's what he's done: He has turned the republican party into the fanatical "Party of Trump".  Trump can, quite literally, do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters.  None.  Well... if he took away guns then yes but that's about it.

Personally, I think they should have let Mr. Mueller fade away and not subject him to what was basically hours of one side asking him questions they already knew the answer to and the other side having an internet rant about how wrong he is then asking a related question so they would look like they're actually asking him things instead of just yelling at him.

The Democrats can't stop Trump. There is only one person who can stop Trump, and that's Trump.  And the best way to stop Trump is to let him do whatever he wants.  He will hang himself just to show he can.  And if the Democrats voted and agreed with everything him and Republicans said/did for an entire year, it would destroy him completely.  He'd have no enemies to blame.  No antagonist to ralley his supporters against.  And without that, what is he?  Just a normal, ordinary Republican politician.  One vulnerable to whatever scandle happens.

Also, with a 2 party system, Republicans would be forced to argue against Democrats(who are agreeing with Republican policies) and who knows what would happen then.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4163 on: July 25, 2019, 08:07:36 PM »
Trump showing off the new presidential seal?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4164 on: July 25, 2019, 08:20:01 PM »
He wishes.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4165 on: July 25, 2019, 08:47:08 PM »
Trump didn't have anything to do with the fake seal, according to this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/presidential-seal-trump.html
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4166 on: July 26, 2019, 12:21:34 AM »
This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.

It isn't just wrong, though. A person is innocent until proven guilty, something that people like yourself not only forget, but seem to rather enjoy forgetting. No one commits a crime unless it has been proven they did in court. There's no such thing as a criminal that hasn't been convicted of a crime. Until Trump is convicted of obstructing justice, he didn't obstruct justice. It's just that simple. If your argument is "well, he obstructed justice, but we can't/won't prove it" then it's an incredibly bad argument.

We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.

"I could, like, totally charge him with stuff" is not sufficient evidence. You're making an assumption. You have no idea how much evidence does or doesn't exist, because once again, this hasn't gone to court. The entire purpose of a court is to prevent people like yourself from making bad assumptions.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 12:24:09 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4167 on: July 26, 2019, 04:58:00 AM »
This is just wrong.  A person is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice until convicted in a court of law, true, but they absolutely can do it before hand.  Which is what the trial is all about.  Time doesn't flow backwards.  It's not "Verdict, evidence, crime" it's "Crime, evidence, verdict".  The crime ALWAYS comes before the verdict. 
Also, Trump did not Obstruct Justice.  He tried but he his subordinates didn't follow his orders.  So it's more "Attempted Obstruction of Justice" which is just as bad, given his position of power.

It isn't just wrong, though. A person is innocent until proven guilty, something that people like yourself not only forget, but seem to rather enjoy forgetting. No one commits a crime unless it has been proven they did in court. There's no such thing as a criminal that hasn't been convicted of a crime. Until Trump is convicted of obstructing justice, he didn't obstruct justice. It's just that simple. If your argument is "well, he obstructed justice, but we can't/won't prove it" then it's an incredibly bad argument.

We have sufficient evidence (even Mr. Mueller said so) to say that he could be charged were he not the president and immune to such things.  And, as I said above, he tried and failed.  But that's irrelevant.  I mean, if you prevent police from searching your home (with a warrant) by physically trying to block them and they come in anyway... you failed to obstruct justice but you tried and you're gonna be arrested for it.

"I could, like, totally charge him with stuff" is not sufficient evidence. You're making an assumption. You have no idea how much evidence does or doesn't exist, because once again, this hasn't gone to court. The entire purpose of a court is to prevent people like yourself from making bad assumptions.

We are in two parallel discussions.  I'm talking about the act and you're talking about the legal status of an accused.  Unless I'm wrong and you think a crime only exists after a judge finds someone guilty of it.  But that would be silly since it would be hard for any person to defend themselves against a crime that hasn't happened yet.

But fine, I'll play your game.

Using the investigation provided by Robert Mueller and his team as well as the testimony of Robert Mueller on July 25, 2019, there is sufficient evidence to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice.  However due to his position, he can not be charged until he is no longer a sitting president.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4168 on: July 26, 2019, 10:34:36 AM »
Quote
[quote authttps://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.4140hor=Lord Dave link=topic=5536.msg197045#msg197045 date=1564053857]
I like how Trump says the report exonerates him, then Lackey says the report isn't supposed to exonerate him.
It isn't supposed to exonerate him.

What Trump relies upon is the fact no decisions were made in regard to prosecution.

That is what exonerates him. 
You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?
Trump is consistently persecuted...

Where have you been?

You are here persecuting him on a daily basis. 
If he were to walk to your house, stab you, and rape your mom, he could not be arrested or charged with a crime. Not until he was removed from office.
That is laughable on a few points:
1) He isn't the complete moron or monster you or others claim him to be;
B) My mom is dead; and,
III) Despite the rhetoric, anyone in the US can be charged with a crime. You are here charging him with a crime. 
Quote
And... The report very clearly states it does not exonerate the president.  Which Lackey points out was said.  Not sure why this is a bad thing.  The report very clearly does not exonerate Trump.

Not sure the point.

"Exoneration is not the job scope therefore I can not exonerate the president."
Which means that the report CAN NOT EXONERATE  Trump even though he says it did.
The report does exonerate Trump and doesn't need to have it in writing.

Any mention of the word exoneration is superfluous and should not have been made in the first place, as it was not within the scope of the special counsel report to include such a word or even consideration.
You can't exonerate someone with a report if the report can't exonerate them. 
Nor can you claim "I wasn't charged, therefore I'm exonerated" because if that's the case then Hillary is exonerated of all acusations against her.
Hillary does stand exonerated.

What part of "ALL GOD'S CHILDREN," was lost?

As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.


Forgive me, but I just have to point this out (because it's taking merit out of the debate), but there is a lot of 'getting hung up on symantecs' going on here. Sometimes being pedantic is just plain silly. And if you're going to be "technical", shouldn't you be so in all cases, and not just when it suits you?

Edit:

Quote
You realize that Trump can't be persecuted, right?

For example: Based on context, my assumption is that LD meant prosecuted, not persecuted.... but if you wanted to take this technically, as a computer would, and not a human being capable of understanding human error, then you would be correct.... Trump has been continually persecuted, albeit by his own design - he means to be persecuted.
LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4169 on: July 26, 2019, 10:38:10 AM »
As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:
exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.
I am unsure of how you come to the conclusion Trump has not been charged.

Charges of everything, from being racist to a pedophile to obstruction of justice, have been leveled against him for over 30 years.

Of course, none of it is true, but you need to look at the left for why they continue to pursue the victim stance when the citizens of the US have had their fill of this baloney.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4170 on: July 26, 2019, 10:40:46 AM »
LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.
Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4171 on: July 26, 2019, 10:42:10 AM »
As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:
exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.
I am unsure of how you come to the conclusion Trump has not been charged.

Charges of everything, from being racist to a pedophile to obstruction of justice, have been leveled against him for over 30 years.

Of course, none of it is true, but you need to look at the left for why they continue to pursue the victim stance when the citizens of the US have had their fill of this baloney.

Some are accusations, some were actual charges filed (like vioating the fair housing law back in the 1970s). 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4172 on: July 26, 2019, 10:44:33 AM »
LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.
Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.
Yes, Presidents can be charged and Presidents can be arrested.

I have no idea where you are getting this ridiculous and false information.

From Laurence Tribe:
"Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president
« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 10:50:05 AM by totallackey »

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4173 on: July 26, 2019, 11:27:21 AM »
LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.
Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.
Yes, Presidents can be charged and Presidents can be arrested.

I have no idea where you are getting this ridiculous and false information.

From Laurence Tribe:
"Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

You are talking about a viscous crime that has wittnesses, per the hypothetical mentioned above. In trumps case, it is not nearly as cut and dry as murdering someone in plain view, my assumption (and that of others) is that trump cannot/will not be charged without first being impeached. However, since you are being technical, you are correct, he can be charged with viscous, obvious, crimes.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 11:55:00 AM by timterroo »
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

totallackey

Re: Trump
« Reply #4174 on: July 26, 2019, 11:40:15 AM »
LordDave went on to write Trump couldn't be charged or arrested (neither being true).

So no, i was not being pedantic, nor was I caught up in semantics in this instance...

Despite your protestations otherwise.
Ummm... He can't be charged or arrested as President.  He is immune so long as he's president according to decades old DOJ protocol.  True there isn't anything in the constitution about it but it hasn't been an issue that needed a constitutional ruling.

But regardless, the policy that's existed since 1973 is: no, they can't.
Yes, Presidents can be charged and Presidents can be arrested.

I have no idea where you are getting this ridiculous and false information.

From Laurence Tribe:
"Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

You are talking about a viscous crime that has wittnesses, per the cliche mentioned above. In trumps case, it is not nearly as cut and dry as murdering someone in plain view, my assumption (and that of others) is that trump cannot/will not be charged without first being impeached. However, since you are being technical, you are correct, he can be charged with viscous, obvious, crimes.
It doesn't matter who is President.

"...my assumption (and that of others) is that trump cannot/will not be charged without first being impeached.", in this instance is baseless.

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4175 on: July 26, 2019, 11:58:26 AM »
@totallackey

Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself by saying in one instance the president can  be charged and in another instance of you say the president cannot be charged?

 Can you clear this up for me ?
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4176 on: July 26, 2019, 01:40:57 PM »

It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE a President cannot be charged or arrested for committing a crime.

Oh?  Please, tell us which president was arrested or charged in committing a crime.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 5869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4177 on: July 26, 2019, 02:03:04 PM »
As of right now, Trump is in the clear.

That is the definition of exonerate.

Not quite:
exonerate
verb [ T ]
formal uk ​ /ɪɡˈzɒn.ə.reɪt/ us ​ /ɪɡˈzɑː.nɚ.eɪt/

to show or state that someone or something is not guilty of something:

Again, not charged yet is not the same as exonerated.
I am unsure of how you come to the conclusion Trump has not been charged.

Charges of everything, from being racist to a pedophile to obstruction of justice, have been leveled against him for over 30 years.

Of course, none of it is true, but you need to look at the left for why they continue to pursue the victim stance when the citizens of the US have had their fill of this baloney.
In case you haven't been keeping up, I'm talking about how Trump not being indicted or charged by the Mueller team does not mean that the Mueller team exonerated Trump. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6537
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4178 on: July 27, 2019, 07:30:21 AM »
Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms https://n.pr/2ZfiIXP

This is gonna bite Republicans in the ass later.  This means that there is now legal precident for a president to go against the ruling of congress when appropriating funds for projects so long as they declare a national emergency.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7539
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #4179 on: July 27, 2019, 03:36:32 PM »
You can establish that an act has taken place without convicting someone.  It's not unusual for a trial not to contest the facts of the case, yet seek a not guilty verdict for technical reasons.

You can't establish that someone did something without proving that someone did something.

proving someone did something and proving it to the standard of a criminal conviction are two distinct ideas.

It isn't, though, or at least, it shouldn't be. People are free to choose what their standards of evidence are, but many choose standards of evidence that are frighteningly low. The same human beings who would gladly decree witches be burned at the stake are still effectively roaming around this planet. Teaching them that certain standards of evidence must be met to prove someone performed a certain action is necessary.

It's the epistemic regress problem - this is the argument Rushy is using. In the end, however, even a philosopher must accept that "experiences can count as evidence as well".

On Evidence (https://www.iep.utm.edu/evidence/#SH1b)

"This being granted, suppose we were to accept, in addition, that evidence consists only in propositions, as was urged in §1a. If so, the natural conclusion would be that what justifies a subject's belief are other propositions he believes (his evidence). More formally, we would say that, for any proposition p that a subject S believes at a time t, if S is justified in believing p at t, there must be at least one other proposition q that S believes at t, which counts as S's evidence for p. But if this is so, it seems we should also require that S's belief in q itself be justified; for if S is groundlessly assuming q, how could it justify his belief in p? Yet if S's belief that q must be justified, then by the same reasoning S must possess evidence for q, consisting in yet another proposition r that S is justified in believing. And, of course, there shall have to be another proposition serving as S's evidence for r. The question is: where, if at all, does this chain of justifications terminate? We refer to this as the epistemic regress problem. As we shall soon see, the regress problem may support the conclusion that experiences can count as evidence as well (see especially Audi 2003)."

This is another case of you not understanding a subject, and unfortunately, googling for ideas you also don't understand and trying to explain a situation with them. This isn't a philosophical debate, but a legal one. There are crossovers, but this is not an accurate depiction, and more importantly, this has nothing to do with regression.

My overall point is that I now have several posters in this thread who are great examples of an epidemic that has plagued human civilization for its entire existence. An epidemic of people who are unable to utter the phrase "I don't know" and unable to admit that if you can't prove someone didn't do something, they simply didn't do it. This is a naturally unsettling admission for many people, consequently, the amount of people willing to make such an admission are rare. It's strange, in the end, because the admission requires far less energy than the constant attempts to repair an ego damaged by the idea that it does in fact not know everything and cannot establish actions without adequate evidence reviewed by people other than themselves.

Supreme Court Lets Trump Border Wall Move Forward, But Legal Fight Still Looms https://n.pr/2ZfiIXP

This is gonna bite Republicans in the ass later.  This means that there is now legal precident for a president to go against the ruling of congress when appropriating funds for projects so long as they declare a national emergency.


This doesn't go against the ruling of Congress. Congress ruled a border wall be built in 2006 and then proceeded to never build it. If you believe what Trump is doing does go against Congress, I suggest you cite a Congressional act explicitly forbidding Trump from building a border wall.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2019, 03:44:12 PM by Rushy »