Trump claimed Brett Kavanaugh was 'proven innocent' of claims he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey

Whatever dude. Keep on keepin' on. Trump needs folks like your to maintain his idiocy.

 

Yeah, Trump claimed Kavanaugh was proven innocent, which was a lie.

 

A black man is walking out of a supermarket when a black woman points at him and screams, "He has a stolen bottle of scotch in his pocket!"
The man declares his innocence. The black woman screams, "He's my ex, and he's a no good bum!"
A guard approaches the man and searches him. There is no bottle of any kind on his person. The manager says, "He is innocent of the charge."
The woman accuser screams, "What? Man, you ain't no judge so you cain't declare his ass innocent, nohow!"
"Pipe down," the manager says. "This man has no bottle on him, so he IS innocent."
"Don't you be all up in my face, you honkey!" screams the furious woman. "I is a respectable woman and I got my rights, and I say he stole the whiskey, you hear me?"
"Guard, let him leave," the manager orders, while the woman rants and raves.

Basically, you are using the woman's argument. According to you, the man was not proven innocent by the complete lack of evidence. To the fair-minded manager, he was.

 

Innocent until proven guilty. If no guilt can be proved then innocence is assumed. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

The point is moot, we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty. And the lone word of a loon just isn't good nuff!

 

I haven't found a lie of his yet, though I have tried hard. If you find a genuine one, please show it to me (no Gish Gallops please).

 

100% correct. But assumed != proved. They have drastically different meanings.

 

LOL!!!! I had one prospective employer who believed I would not be able to adequately manage the requirements of supervising the IT department, so he didn't hire me. Should I have demanded he produce proof I was guilty of inadequate ability?

 

I agree there is a rhetorical feature to the claim but by the very act of accusing someone of heinous crimes that are never remotely
demonstrated a person's innocence is reaffirmed and reestablished.

 

Are YOU 10? Do you really think this is vindicating your orange buffoons statement?
In your little story (btw seems a lot of effort but it does demonstrate you missed the point completely so - lol for that) the woman is making a falsifiable claim, ie he has a bottle in his pocket. That statement can be easily proved by checking his pocket. Now what if she claimed that the man had stolen a bottle sometime last year? Not see easy to falsify that claim, is it? Nope, if that were the claim then she would need to bring proof that he swiped the booze. If not the man would be presumed innocent.
It's really not a hard concept.

 

Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?
Just because I can't prove that I didn't commit a crime doesn't mean that I'm not innocent. Same with Kavanaugh.
Holy god you are sllloooowwww.

 

The analogy worked because what they found in Kavanaugh's pocket was the presumption of innocence. What they found in Ford's empty proof-purse was plenty of motive to lie since she was an anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh demonstrator. Whether you were a POTUS, a SCOTUS or a supermarket manager, you would see plenty of proof of Kavanaugh's innocence and plenty of proof of Ford's lying.

 

Actually in the United States, like it most free nations, you don't have to prove your innocent. The burden is on the one making the claiming that you are not. In this case the accuser failed to produce any such evidence, and in fact the evidence was overwhelming that she was makign things up. Hence, the Judge is innocent, and it was proven.

 

Ahhh that is YOUR logic.

And there was no crime proved to have been committed and if fact the allegation disproven.

And you will never be innocentof raping my mother by your logic.

 

People are going to believe what they want, which highlights the damage done by false accusations...

 

Yes you can come to that conclusion but you can't fvcking PROVE it, which is, like the entire point of this thread.

 

I really hope what we have is a whole lot of trilling going on in this thread. If American's are really this stupid then a potentially bad scotus appointment really is the least of our problems.

You are good right up until the bolded part. The judge is probably, most likely innocent, and it most certainly was not proven.

If you really think that it's not possible, given the information we have, that Kavanaugh is guilty then I don't know what to tell you. You have a serious flaw in the way you process information.

 

I can't make you understand elementary logic. I'm sorry.

 

Very true. I think there should be a penalty if you make an accusation that you can't prove. The accusation, in and of itself, can be quite damaging.

 

Every time you run from backing up your claim about my argument and evidence, I win.

 

Run! You are running! You are running from me! I am such a bad ass that I will follow you around and whine incessantly that you are running from me! I win! My fellow Trump fans keep giving me likes so I must be winning! I am so cool because I follow people around online because they are smarter than me!


Keep trolling. Keep stalking like an obsessed little fan.

 

How cute.

 

If you say so. I think that is just delusion to pretend the president is not an *******.

 

He was proven innocent.

 

You think? Keep you coming back, following me around, just like the other, throwing out silly insults, nonstop personal attacks, all spawned in the fetid womb of intellectual jealousy.

Own it.