MAGAThread XVI: Raising the Barr

[Nakena]

Attempting to maximize the smear ahead of 2020.

The dems really don't have anything else to run with, so they go to their old standby of unsubstantiated accusations of sexual assault.

I know Trumpism and the truth are mutually exclusive, but you continue to take it to a whole new level with every post.

That is the very essence of trumpism. It what turned it into an unstoppable force of memetic might.

[Senkaku]

yes yes, the well-known principle of "if you haven't seen the evidence of the rape, it's part of a vast manufactured political conspiracy (for which there is also no evidence)"

More like "If there isn't video of the rape it's a politically motivated smear."

that's what I said but I was funnier or at least trying to be but thank you for rewording it

[The South Falls]

Where is any evidence?

yes yes, the well-known principle of "if you haven't seen the evidence of the rape, it's part of a vast manufactured political conspiracy (for which there is also no evidence)"

I just say tentatively believe them, but be open to the fact it may not be right. About 92 to 95% of rape cases are not falsified. Just wait to see evidence before crucifixion.

[Telconi]

yes yes, the well-known principle of "if you haven't seen the evidence of the rape, it's part of a vast manufactured political conspiracy (for which there is also no evidence)"

I just say tentatively believe them, but be open to the fact it may not be right. About 92 to 95% of rape cases are not falsified. Just wait to see evidence before crucifixion.

I think that the very essence of "innocent until proven guilty" disqualifies tentative belief.

Also, I doubt those numbers, any sauce?

[Proctopeo]

yes yes, the well-known principle of "if you haven't seen the evidence of the rape, it's part of a vast manufactured political conspiracy (for which there is also no evidence)"

I just say tentatively believe them, but be open to the fact it may not be right. About 92 to 95% of rape cases are not falsified. Just wait to see evidence before crucifixion.

"wait to see evidence before crucifixion" and "tentatively believe them" are inherently contradictory

[Gormwood]

In the Donnie Does As Donnie Is Department...

Turns out that while Donnie keeps singing that he loves law enforcement (when they're not going after him), he regularly stiffs law enforcement of cities on bills he racks up for police security whenever he holds public events such as his frequent masturbatory hugbox campaign rallies.

WHY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WON’T PAY POLICE BILLS

[The South Falls]

I just say tentatively believe them, but be open to the fact it may not be right. About 92 to 95% of rape cases are not falsified. Just wait to see evidence before crucifixion.

"wait to see evidence before crucifixion" and "tentatively believe them" are inherently contradictory

tentatively in that, you don't harbor hatred or take action, the figurative crucifixion. Suspicion, is what i'm trying to say.

I just say tentatively believe them, but be open to the fact it may not be right. About 92 to 95% of rape cases are not falsified. Just wait to see evidence before crucifixion.

I think that the very essence of "innocent until proven guilty" disqualifies tentative belief.

Also, I doubt those numbers, any sauce?

sure.

Read page 13 of this
The study says about 5.9%, while most people say between 2 and 10% (are falsified).

[Nakena]

Roy Moore, Kavanaugh, Trump. Its well known at this point that the Republicans have become the Party Of Rape.

Funny isn't it?

[Zapato]

But the woman never gets to be.

The person making the accusation has to provide the evidence.

Why does that only work one way?

"He raped me" - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - "No evidence required, carry on"

[Grinning Dragon]

The person making the accusation has to provide the evidence.

Why does that only work one way?

"He raped me" - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - "No evidence required, carry on"

It works in the way that a person being accused is by default innocent, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

[Vassenor]

But the woman never gets to be.

The person making the accusation has to provide the evidence.

So let's see the evidence that this is a politically motivated smear like you are accusing her of making.

[Nakena]

Why does that only work one way?

"He raped me" - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - "No evidence required, carry on"

It works in the way that a person being accused is by default innocent, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

Yes. Thats why I do no longer believe it anymore. Each time an rape (or pedo) accusation comes up those days I am more often than not be like "Uh oh, now they they want to bring down X? Quite suspicious"

[Gormwood]

It works in the way that a person being accused is by default innocent, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

Yes. Thats why I do no longer believe it anymore. Each time an rape (or pedo) accusation comes up those days I am more often than not be like "Uh oh, now they they want to bring down X? Quite suspicious"

Roy Moore Did Nothing Wrong.

[Northern Davincia]

Roy Moore, Kavanaugh, Trump. Its well known at this point that the Republicans have become the Party Of Rape.

I take it Bill Clinton and Justin Fairfax don't exist. The accusations against Moore were at least credible, the ones against Kavanaugh weren't at all. I'm on the fence with Trump.

"wait to see evidence before crucifixion" and "tentatively believe them" are inherently contradictory

tentatively in that, you don't harbor hatred or take action, the figurative crucifixion. Suspicion, is what i'm trying to say.

I think that the very essence of "innocent until proven guilty" disqualifies tentative belief.

Also, I doubt those numbers, any sauce?

sure.

Read page 13 of this
The study says about 5.9%, while most people say between 2 and 10% (are falsified).

Yes, but alongside that percentage, 44.9% did not proceed in court and 13.9% lacked enough information to make a valid case. It's much harder to really determine how many accusations are falsely made.

[Tarsonis]

Yes. Thats why I do no longer believe it anymore. Each time an rape (or pedo) accusation comes up those days I am more often than not be like "Uh oh, now they they want to bring down X? Quite suspicious"

Roy Moore Did Nothing Wrong.

Roy Moor aside, Nakena does have a point . The Kavenaugh hearings poisoned the well completely

[Zapato]

Why does that only work one way?

"He raped me" - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - "No evidence required, carry on"

It works in the way that a person being accused is by default innocent, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

One would think, but let's revisit what I said above:

"He raped me" - an accusation of a crime - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - an accusation of a crime - "No evidence required, carry on"

For some reason, several people seem to have a tendency to forget that the second statement is also an accusation of a crime, and only treat the person in the first case as innocent by default.

[Tarsonis]

It works in the way that a person being accused is by default innocent, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

One would think, but let's revisit what I said above:

"He raped me" - an accusation of a crime - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - an accusation of a crime - "No evidence required, carry on"

For some reason, several people seem to have a tendency to forget that the second statement is also an accusation of a crime, and only treat the person in the first case as innocent by default.

The problem is they’re either telling the truth, or lying. There’s no practical middle ground. If the person accused denies it, then the obvious natural conclusion is someone’s lying either the accused or the accuser. While legally yes if you wanted to press charges you would have to prove the fraudulence beyond a reasonable doubt. But as a defense the accused can claim falsehood all they want, and they don’t necessarily have to prove it. The burden is on the accuser to prove they’re telling the truth.

[Ism]

One would think, but let's revisit what I said above:

"He raped me" - an accusation of a crime - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - an accusation of a crime - "No evidence required, carry on"

For some reason, several people seem to have a tendency to forget that the second statement is also an accusation of a crime, and only treat the person in the first case as innocent by default.

The problem is they’re either telling the truth, or lying. There’s no practical middle ground. If the person accused denies it, then the obvious natural conclusion is someone’s lying either the accused or the accuser. While legally yes if you wanted to press charges you would have to prove the fraudulence beyond a reasonable doubt. But as a defense the accused can claim falsehood all they want, and they don’t necessarily have to prove it. The burden is on the accuser to prove they’re telling the truth.

There absolutely is a middle ground, it is making no assumptions. You neither assume that the accused is guilty, nor that the accuser is lying. You wait for more information, and until you get enough to make a reasonable decision, you don't assume anything.

[Tarsonis]

The problem is they’re either telling the truth, or lying. There’s no practical middle ground. If the person accused denies it, then the obvious natural conclusion is someone’s lying either the accused or the accuser. While legally yes if you wanted to press charges you would have to prove the fraudulence beyond a reasonable doubt. But as a defense the accused can claim falsehood all they want, and they don’t necessarily have to prove it. The burden is on the accuser to prove they’re telling the truth.

There absolutely is a middle ground, it is making no assumptions. You neither assume that the accused is guilty, nor that the accuser is lying. You wait for more information, and until you get enough to make a reasonable decision, you don't assume anything.

That’s not what I meant. I mean that if someone makes an accusation and the accused denies it. Logically one must be lying, they can’t both be telling the truth, nor can they both be lying. So no practical middle ground.

Legally there is a middle ground, of “unsubstantiated” which is a broad category that covers all levels of not enough evidence to prove either way.

[Gormwood]

In the Donnie Does As Donnie Is Department...

Turns out that while Donnie keeps singing that he loves law enforcement (when they're not going after him), he regularly stiffs law enforcement of cities on bills he racks up for police security whenever he holds public events such as his frequent masturbatory hugbox campaign rallies.

WHY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WON’T PAY POLICE BILLS

Just to get back on topic away from the lawyer talk.

[Zurkerx]

In the Donnie Does As Donnie Is Department...

Turns out that while Donnie keeps singing that he loves law enforcement (when they're not going after him), he regularly stiffs law enforcement of cities on bills he racks up for police security whenever he holds public events such as his frequent masturbatory hugbox campaign rallies.

WHY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WON’T PAY POLICE BILLS

Just to get back on topic away from the lawyer talk.

How ironic. It seems that because no contract was signed, the Trump Campaign doesn't have to pay. Should have got his signature. Stupid but a signature does go along way in that case. Or alternatively, just don't have him come until he pays.

[Valrifell]

Why does that only work one way?

"He raped me" - "You have to provide evidence for that"

"She falsely accused him" - "No evidence required, carry on"

It works in the way that a person being accused is by default innocent, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

Assumption of innocence is a two way street, which means you can't just assume the accuser is a liar out of the gate either, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

[Zurkerx]

It works in the way that a person being accused is by default innocent, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

Assumption of innocence is a two way street, which means you can't just assume the accuser is a liar out of the gate either, unless you want to go back to the days of inquisitions.

I think the best way to put it is simple and from someone I know everyone loves- Ronald Reagan:

Trust, but verify.

[The Black Forrest]

Why would they wait until now?

Attempting to maximize the smear ahead of 2020.

The dems really don't have anything else to run with, so they go to their old standby of unsubstantiated accusations of sexual assault.

Sounds about right. You have the repubs wailing about the brown menace coming to kill and rape the corpses. The gays are going to force our children to be gay.

Politics is so much fun.

[Tarsonis]

Attempting to maximize the smear ahead of 2020.

The dems really don't have anything else to run with, so they go to their old standby of unsubstantiated accusations of sexual assault.

Sounds about right. You have the repubs wailing about the brown menace coming to kill and rape the corpses. The gays are going to force our children to be gay.

Politics is so much fun.

After the scientists rewrite our DNA so we can’t receive the Holy Spirit