Potus ???

[Steven P]

No but then you cannot proclaim someone innocent because there is another out there also doing dodgy things though can you?

 

"He was a bad man until that other man did this and now he is not a bad man, the stuff he did is no longer a matter for the record"?

 

One thing this thread is missing though, no one apart from me it seams is thinking what would 'we' think if the crims he committed were done be a neighbour? Would he still be defended?

[GarethM]

3 minutes ago, Steven P said:

No but then you cannot proclaim someone innocent because there is another out there also doing dodgy things though can you?

 

"He was a bad man until that other man did this and now he is not a bad man, the stuff he did is no longer a matter for the record"?

 

One thing this thread is missing though, no one apart from me it seams is thinking what would 'we' think if the crims he committed were done be a neighbour? Would he still be defended?

You are aware how law is supposed to work, it's all about technicalities and meeting said definition to be guilty.

 

You can't say he's a murder because he once ate a beef burger, because in a loose definition of your logic.

 

That cow died for the burger ergo he's a murder.

Edited December 15 by GarethM

[Doug Tait]

Gareth, could you answer a direct question without going down an unintelligible, meandering path of obfuscation.

 

Personally I come to one conclusion. If any man, however much I agreed with their political stance, sporting prowess, or business acumen, thought it was fine to be grabbing some woman by the kitten or creeping around trying to perv on or manipulate young women, or is associating with peodophiles, I'm done.

 

The last one I met in real life (the archetypal creepy uncle at a wedding) was invited to a quiet corner while it was explained what was acceptable behaviour around my mates daughter.

 

Regardless of semantics around the law, proof of one thing over another, they've displayed a complete lack of morality and that is how I'll judge them, on their unacceptable behaviour.

 

I found that very easy.

[GarethM]

4 minutes ago, Doug Tait said:

Gareth, could you answer a direct question without going down an unintelligible, meandering path of obfuscation.

 

Personally I come to one conclusion. If any man, however much I agreed with their political stance, sporting prowess, or business acumen, thought it was fine to be grabbing some woman by the kitten or creeping around trying to perv on or manipulate young women, or is associating with peodophiles, I'm done.

 

The last one I met in real life (the archetypal creepy uncle at a wedding) was invited to a quiet corner while it was explained what was acceptable behaviour around my mates daughter.

 

Regardless of semantics around the law, proof of one thing over another, they've displayed a complete lack of morality and that is how I'll judge them, on their unacceptable behaviour.

 

I found that very easy.

Firstly actually ask a bloody question before you head off into diatribe of nothingness.

 

Yet you all seem very quiet about biden and his long career of dodge and money making.

 

Donald might be bad, but jebus biden and those enabling his tenure as the senile old fool could barely wipe his own arse let alone find his way out the portaloo.

[Doug Tait]

Firstly, you've been obfuscating so long you must have forgotten the question!

How appropriate.

 

However, for me you've answered it with the last post, more obfuscation. Clearly you're having real difficulties standing by your opinion.

What an unhappy place to reside.

[GarethM]

Actually my reply contains very little obfuscation, usually a question is followed by a question mark.

 

On the one hand you can't claim the laws the law and then when someone isn't convicted of said crime by being found not guilty.

 

But oh nooooo, there's no smoke without fire argument. Same argument applies to released prisoners, they've repaid their debt to society.

 

You'll argue shaved heads and missing limbs one assumed in your Saudi judiciary?.

[Steven P]

2 hours ago, Steven P said:

No but then you cannot proclaim someone innocent because there is another out there also doing dodgy things though can you?

 

[GarethM]

4 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

Hunter won't see a court room tho will he!.

 

However rumour is that as a result he can be forced to give evidence against other people and isn't able to plead the 5th, so in effect has to talk 

Edited December 15 by GarethM

[Steven P]

Exactly.

 

However are you now using Hunter Bidens cocaine use as evidence that Trump is innocent of all crimes - including the sex crimes? Not sure there is a link to be honest but willing to listen to how they are related.

[GarethM]

Did I say he wasn't bad, no.

 

But you seem totally blinkered in your view he's a rapist, a court found otherwise, therefore not a rapist and a court has proven such.

 

I could use Blair as an example, war criminal and low rent despot. But legally clear.