OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[1bad65]

he doesnt understand the basic concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Oh, he understands it. But he's ignoring it because he has to 'win'.

It's all about 'winning' to that basement dweller. Nothing else matters. Nothing.

Not the complete lack of evidence, not the US Constitution, and not over 200 years of jurisprudence. Nothing matters but Travesty 'winning' every Internet argument he gets into.

Once you realize that fact, you'll realize what a complete waste of time it is to engage that clown.

[bigjavi973]

Oh, he understands it. But he's ignoring it because he has to 'win'.

It's all about 'winning' to that basement dweller. Nothing else matters. Nothing.

Not the complete lack of evidence, not the US Constitution, and not over 200 years of jurisprudence. Nothing matters but Travesty 'winning' every Internet argument he gets into.

Once you realize that fact, you'll realize what a complete waste of time it is to engage that clown.

He is lucky we dont live in a country that all you have to do is say "he did it" and your life is ruined forever.

[/QUOTE]

He just doesnt get it. Only way to technically prove your innocence if someone else gets peg for it. Kind of an asinine way of thinking actually.

[1bad65]

He just doesnt get it.

I'll have to agree to disagree.

But keep engaging him, you'll eventually see.

Only way to technically prove your innocence if someone else gets peg for it. Kind of an asinine way of thinking actually.

Nope. Even that wouldn't be enough if Travesty was seeking a 'win'.

He'd just say the other guy was wrongly convicted, or some such nonsense.

Like I keep saying, the kid is never wrong. Ever.

Tens of thousands of posts, and not been wrong a once.

Just ask him to cite one instance of him conceding a point he's argued. Just one instance.

Mark my words, he cant.


How about we play a little game?

You ask him to cite instances of him ever conceding points he's argued.

If he cites 3 instances, I'll take the guy off Ignore and re-engage him like you do (and thus he can always 'win' against me like he used to ).

But if he cant cite 3 little instances, you put him on ignore.

What ya say?

[travestyny]

bruh wtf are you talking about? Are you high on crack right now or something?


again....you are comparing a court case from the 50s (racism deeply involved)
to an OJ trial from the 90s.


again do you know how silly that sounds?

stop twisting what I wrote you can easily go back and quote them.

you are pushing trolling right now

How am I twisting what you wrote. I asked you straight up if not guilty means innocent. You said of course.


I gave you two sources that say you are wrong.


Do you want to admit that you're wrong now, or what?

[travestyny]

"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. ... The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted."


lets say you accuse me of murdering your neighbor, but I wasn't even in the damn town at the time. Lets say I can't produce a receipt of some kind to prove that I wasn't there, but there was no dna evidence or any of the sort. They find me "not guilty".

Why would you be on trial if you were not there? That's called having an alibi. It wouldn't even make it to court.

Does that mean im innocent of that said crime? Or am I still guilty by association or some shit?

There would be no discussion about this if you weren't there. You wouldn't even be in trial.


Once again, a trial doesn't seek to prove you are innoocent. It's only concerned with whether the evidence is convincing or not. You can be found not guilty and still be guilty. You've already seen evidence of this. It's not rocket science for most of us.

because that's what you are explaining that you are guilty REGARDLESS since there's no technical way to prove you are innocent UNLESS someone else admits to the crime or gets found guilty in the court of law.

No. You are just having a hard time following. I didn't say you are guilty regardless. I said a lack of evidence that you committed a crime does not mean you are innocent. Being found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent. Trump has not been found innocent. He has not been found guilty either.

It's you who keeps getting this wrong and claiming that the report concludes that he was innocent. That's not true.

you can keep trying its not gonna work your trollish behavior is becoming annoying

What am I trying and how am I trolling? I'm stating a fact. Just because you don't like facts doesn't mean I'm trolling. I gave you two damn links proving that you're wrong and you wont' even mention them.

[travestyny]

I'll have to agree to disagree.

But keep engaging him, you'll eventually see.



Nope. Even that wouldn't be enough if Travesty was seeking a 'win'.

He'd just say the other guy was wrongly convicted, or some such nonsense.

Like I keep saying, the kid is never wrong. Ever.

Tens of thousands of posts, and not been wrong a once.

Just ask him to cite one instance of him conceding a point he's argued. Just one instance.

Mark my words, he cant.


How about we play a little game?

You ask him to cite instances of him ever conceding points he's argued.

If he cites 3 instances, I'll take the guy off Ignore and re-engage him like you do (and thus he can always 'win' against me like he used to ).

But if he cant cite 3 little instances, you put him on ignore.

What ya say?

Go ask Zaroku if I've ever conceded points. He might be able to help you out, little guy

The problem when it comes to you is not that I'm never wrong...the problem is that when it comes to our interaction, you are never right

[bigjavi973]

.....

you are trolling.

I've already won. Read it and weep, Sunspace

also are you admitting to being sunspace?


again... innocent until PROVEN guilty. The cases you gave, have absurd amounts of biases in them. Those are just facts.

if you can not prove your alibi, guess what's gonna happen? Plenty of people ask "who was with you" "was there anyone there that can corroborate".

Your average person does NOT try to see if there are alibi's wherever they go. Its not freakin nazi germany where I would have to prove every single thing i do and where im at.

but again, someone can accuse you of something grave (child molestation, abuse etc) and your life will be ruined. Even if you are found not guilty (innocent), your life will still be ruined. Unless, of course, someone else was found guilty, because like I said before, its the only way technically to prove your innocence.

[travestyny]

you are trolling.

also are you admitting to being sunspace?

What? Go read my quote again.

again... innocent until PROVEN guilty. The cases you gave, have absurd amounts of biases in them. Those are just facts.

if you can not prove your alibi, guess what's gonna happen? Plenty of people ask "who was with you" "was there anyone there that can corroborate".

Your average person does NOT try to see if there are alibi's wherever they go. Its not freakin nazi germany where I would have to prove every single thing i do and where im at.

but again, someone can accuse you of something grave (child molestation, abuse etc) and your life will be ruined. Even if you are found not guilty (innocent), your life will still be ruined. Unless, of course, someone else was found guilty, because like I said before, its the only way technically to prove your innocence.

Ok, let's try this a new way.

WHAT IS INNOCENT?
Being deemed innocent means that you have been cleared of all speculation that you committed a crime. Innocence isn't really something that can be proven at a trial.

WHAT IS NOT GUILTY?
When it comes to a criminal case, the [B]prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime ["beyond a reasonable doubt." That last clause "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred. Being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence wasn't strong enough for a guilty verdict.

https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2...cent-and-not-/

So you're saying this, along with the other link I gave you, is incorrect?

[man down]

What? Go read my quote again.



Ok, let's try this a new way.




So you're saying this, along with the other link I gave you, is incorrect?

Was Trump in a trial? Was he charged with something?

[1bad65]

you are trolling.

My friend, he ain't gonna quit. He cant.

He gets the last word. He has to 'win'.

Always. Every time.

The sooner you realize this fact the sooner you quit spinning your wheels.


Remember my challenge about him never, ever conceding a point.