[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

I do hold the same standard, I don't think Franken should've resigned. And if Moore is proven guilty in a court of law, he should not be eligible for office. But until that proof is provided, until he is proven guilty, it's just political theater.
 
Franken is a close call I don't think he's an outright predator but he did seem really like a loser guy that acted on his creepiness.

Moore has too many accuser and rumours for too long to not at least have some truth. That yearbook accuser was always a fake though. That was always bullshit.

I haven't researched it much and don't have enough outrage to care though.
 
KittyCat said:
Moore has too many accuser and rumours for too long to not at least have some truth.
Click to expand...

rumors for too long?

bs, they all came out at about the same time in november of this year.

you're right, you haven't done your research, so you should probably stop talking about things you know nothing about. :shrug:
 
Havax the unbias source of knowledge :lol:

Plz post more t_d outrage bro you trigged? Rhheeeee we crying about cakes now boys!
 
KittyCat said:
Franken is a close call I don't think he's an outright predator but he did seem really like a loser guy that acted on his creepiness.

Moore has too many accuser and rumours for too long to not at least have some truth. That yearbook accuser was always a fake though. That was always bullshit.

I haven't researched it much and don't have enough outrage to care though.
Click to expand...

The political motivations alone provide doubt to their credibility. He may in fact be a predator, but it has not been proven. Franken may be a predator, and to be honest there's more direct evidence that he is than Moore, but he still deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Now Chaol is correct that the court of public opinion will influence elections, but to declare someone guilty with no burden of proof and therefore unfit or ineligible sways into dangerous territory.
 
Fool said:
The political motivations alone provide doubt to their credibility. He may in fact be a predator, but it has not been proven. Franken may be a predator, and to be honest there's more direct evidence that he is than Moore, but he still deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Now Chaol is correct that the court of public opinion will influence elections, but to declare someone guilty with no burden of proof and therefore unfit or ineligible sways into dangerous territory.
Click to expand...

another big difference is that Moore is actually denying the claims. Franken hasn't denied shit. He just basically keeps saying i'm sorry you felt that way at the time when i did those things.
 
Fool said:
Do you support due process? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Due process was a legal protocol required before the advent of incontrovertible evidence like DNA or video/audio recordings.

It's hubris guarding the bank of lawyers and too often self serving system of justice.

It's time the legal system acknowledges that the hand was indeed in the cookie jar and the time and expense for a trial lasting more than a few hours is completely superfluous.
 
havax said:
rumors for too long?

bs, they all came out at about the same time in november of this year.

you're right, you haven't done your research, so you should probably stop talking about things you know nothing about. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Have you posted any more fake news in the last few days?

Have any Clinton 'associates' (my gosh that couple would know 10's of 1000's of people) died lately?

If only the FBI knew what you know about Seth Rich. damn!
 
KittyCat said:
ff2i5lt32q201.jpg


We got the pedos right where we want them boys!
Click to expand...

Havax defending pedos
 
Fool said:
The political motivations alone provide doubt to their credibility. He may in fact be a predator, but it has not been proven. Franken may be a predator, and to be honest there's more direct evidence that he is than Moore, but he still deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Now Chaol is correct that the court of public opinion will influence elections, but to declare someone guilty with no burden of proof and therefore unfit or ineligible sways into dangerous territory.
Click to expand...

Applying judgment to a candidate's prior actions is inherent to the electoral process. You seem to be implying that we judge candidates only by what can be proven in a court of law, which is ridiculous.
 
Chaol said:
Applying judgment to a candidate's prior actions is inherent to the electoral process. You seem to be implying that we judge candidates only by what can be proven in a court of law, which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I'm saying the same standard of credibility must be applied to both sides of a he-said, she-said, barring no other presented evidence of wrongdoing. I have no reason whatsoever to find the accusers testimony any more or less credible than Moore's denial. Those who apply credibility to one more than another are demonstrating poor judgement, likely due to their own ideological biases. In the absence of proof, a person should give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Otherwise you're simply encouraging more people to falsely accuse for political motivations.
 
Fool said:
Not at all, I'm saying the same standard of credibility must be applied to both sides of a he-said, she-said, barring no other presented evidence of wrongdoing. I have no reason whatsoever to find the accusers testimony any more or less credible than Moore's denial. Those who apply credibility to one more than another are demonstrating poor judgement, likely due to their own ideological biases. In the absence of proof, a person should give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Otherwise you're simply encouraging more people to falsely accuse for political motivations.
Click to expand...

exactly!!!

there is no proof either way, so no one is changing their minds from what they were already going to do anyway. :shrug:

now, if i was voting in Alabama, and irrefutable proof came out that Moore banged a 14 year old, then i would most likely not vote, since i couldn't bring myself to vote for that racist fucking moron liberal doug jones.
 
Fool said:
Not at all, I'm saying the same standard of credibility must be applied to both sides of a he-said, she-said, barring no other presented evidence of wrongdoing. I have no reason whatsoever to find the accusers testimony any more or less credible than Moore's denial. Those who apply credibility to one more than another are demonstrating poor judgement, likely due to their own ideological biases. In the absence of proof, a person should give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Otherwise you're simply encouraging more people to falsely accuse for political motivations.
Click to expand...

My loose understanding is that the balance is multiple accusers against his word, and that his story has changed since this broke (re: acknowledging knowing the women)

As these are alleged pre-digital relationships that occurred decades in the past, he-said she-said is likely all anyone is gonna get
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top