630
Donald Trump may have "sold" classified binder to Russia, Mary Trump claims
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
630 points (93.4% liked)
politics
19089 readers
4786 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So…. Someone with zero proof to back up their claim is someone to be believed 100% without doubt?
Has no one explained to you how these things work?
I think the dude is a despicable piece of shit- but when we start holding people’s feet to the fire just because someone thinks they may have done something with no proof to back it up-
You may as well just elect him. Because you’re basically living in the world he wants anyway.
Personally, I’ll be holding out for concrete evidence instead of making a fool of myself online.
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.
I wasn’t arguing innocence. I was simply saying the court of public opinion should remain silent until the opinions are justified.
But why the double standard? He's certainly not staying silent, even with all the gag orders.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard. The point is- there is no proof. There’s enough to hang him on. Making shit up is only diluting the waters and giving them an argument of doubt.
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.
Cause someone is a shit person, doesn’t mean they’re guilty of evening you can throw at them. There’s a reason for the concept of innocence until proven guilty. It’s what separates us from tyrants. And because they do it- isn’t sufficient reason for us to do it.
Best to wait it out and see how it unfolds.
That's a great point. Thanks for the civil discussion.
~~You stopped being worth listening to when you presupposed that there's zero proof. Goodbye.~~
Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
So show proof or shut on up, chucklefuck.
So… where’s the proof? Go ahead. Point it out where there’s factual evidence of what she’s claiming.
I’ll wait right here.
~~Go ahead and wait. I owe you nothing. I have no incentive to indulge bad faith discussion. Cheers!~~
Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for playing.
You know what, you have a valid point. I was also rude to you earlier and for that I apologize. So, in the interest of good faith discussion, I'll provide a proper reply to one of your comments. One moments, please.
Much respect to you man. Thank you.