Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn’t see Kavanaugh convicted of anything......did you?We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?
If he wasnt convicted of anything, then why are people calling him a rapist? one would almost think he had been convicted in a court of law
So tell us why he had to withdraw from his summer teaching position at Harvard. You know, since he wasn't convicted of anything.I didn’t see Kavanaugh convicted of anything......did you?We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?
Start with all Republicans and President Trump and their NASTY campaign and shouts of:We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?
My thoughts, exactly!I didn’t see Kavanaugh convicted of anything......did you?We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?
If he wasnt convicted of anything, then why are people calling him a rapist? one would almost think he had been convicted in a court of law
If Ms Clinton wasn't convicted of anything, then why are people calling her a murderer? one would almost think she had been convicted in a court of law
View attachment 221447
I’ll take a shot as to “why”….
The people making such accusations on both sides are exhibiting vast reservoirs of stupidity…
You're right - and I adjusted by replies accordingly later. Thanks for the 'call-out'.Great post, but you have misunderstood where the OP is coming from!Oh, BOO-FU@KIN' HOO!We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
The Democrats drug out some political activist liars who accused Kavanaugh of BULLSHIT.
They then declared Kavanaugh was 'GUILTY until proven innocent' and insisted "the burden of proof now falls on the accused' rather than on the accuser...trying to stack the deck so their latest conspiracy would be all but guaranteed to succeed.
The problem was the American people had seen this shit before, watched the despicable Liberals tear apart Cain with this bullshit. Instead of sit by and watch it happen this time they woke up and REJECTED it...as they damn-well should have.
And now, after being defeated and their strategy backfired, you and other Liberal Socialist snowflakes WANT TO HOLD A DISCUSSION TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO THE DESPICABLE IDEA THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN CAN BE DECLARED 'GUILTY' OF ANYTHING JUST BASED OFF OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATION - NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES?
F* THAT, AND F* YOU!
Part of the U.S. Government TARGETED A U.S. Citizen when they targeted Kavanaugh for 'destruction', just as much as it did when it targeted Conservatives in 2012 with the IRS.
U.S. Senators - Democrats - strategically targeted and tried to destroy a US citizen by publicly releasing an unsubstantiated rumor then declared him to be guilty despite having no evidence and no witnesses.
You want to change our system of justice to make THAT the new 'norm'?
You see how the Democrats demonized Kavanaugh ... did you see how the despicable Libs attempted to destroy his word, his reputation, his life's work, his future career, his family, his daughter, his marriage ... did you see how they went after his daughter in the media...without having any evidence of any crime...
...and because the 'Herman Cain'ing of Brett Kavanaugh failed because the American people completely rejected that process / version of liberal-dictated justice you feel we should have a 'talk' about how wrong the majority of Americans were to have rejected it and how we should embrace that liberal bullshit?
Because Feinstein and the pathetic Democrats pushing that bullshit strategy of 'The Politics of Personal Destruction' FAILED / were REJECTED, we should now talk about making putting every American through what Brett Kavanaugh and his family were just forced to go through the 'NEW NORM'?!
Again, F* That!
Again, the Sept hearings were a job interview.
The oct. hearings were a character assignation
Please learn the difference.
The word your searching for is "Appeared". Things can appear to be credible but when no facts back up the appearance then it becomes not credible.. That's the funny thing about feelings and emotion, facts can show them liars no matter how you feel about their presentation..We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?
You know that Kavanuagh was accused of a crime.. Even the GOP Senators said she was credible...
It was the GOP who didn't want an investigation... The GOP just didn't want an investigation..
Innocent people usually want accusations against them investigated. Innocent people don't lie about mitigating circumstances...
I am not saying Kavanaugh is guilty but I think credible accusations have been laid against him...
I've always said that we need an Independent IMPARTIAL investigation with Hillary, Care. Not one from Holder and his cronies,Start with all Republicans and President Trump and their NASTY campaign and shouts of:We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?
LOCK HER UP
no trial, no presumption of innocence,
not even an ounce of it given by you and your party and your side....
So is this presumption of innocence ONLY for republicans? Only for men?
Do you run around and cry the blues for only Kavanaugh's presumption of innocence, and not a peep for Hillary Clinton's?
So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?If it's not an independent investigation it's not impartialLaughing.....check the IG report on that investigation and then talk to me.
But tell us again about the 'presumption of innocence' as your ilk chant 'LOCK HER UP!'
(snicker)
Who says it wasn't an independant investigation?
Let me guess, the same hapless soul that insisted that the investigation wasn't impartial, citing himself?
Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about. While the IG does.
Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.
Which of course, you ignored.
And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.
Care, when Hillary has, Holder, and Lynch leading any investigation, there is no sense of an Independent impartial investigation.So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?If it's not an independent investigation it's not impartial
Who says it wasn't an independant investigation?
Let me guess, the same hapless soul that insisted that the investigation wasn't impartial, citing himself?
Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about. While the IG does.
Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.
Which of course, you ignored.
And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.
8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....
And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?
While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.
Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...
not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....
All A-OK with you eh?
Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?
Care, when Hillary has, Holder, and Lynch leading any investigation, there is no sense of an Independent impartial investigation.So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?Who says it wasn't an independant investigation?
Let me guess, the same hapless soul that insisted that the investigation wasn't impartial, citing himself?
Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about. While the IG does.
Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.
Which of course, you ignored.
And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.
8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....
And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?
While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.
Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...
not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....
All A-OK with you eh?
Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?
I've always said that we need an Independent IMPARTIAL investigation with Hillary, Care. Not one from Holder and his cronies,Start with all Republicans and President Trump and their NASTY campaign and shouts of:We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?
LOCK HER UP
no trial, no presumption of innocence,
not even an ounce of it given by you and your party and your side....
So is this presumption of innocence ONLY for republicans? Only for men?
Do you run around and cry the blues for only Kavanaugh's presumption of innocence, and not a peep for Hillary Clinton's?
not one from Lynch and her cronies. That's fair right?????
You know exactly what happened with Kavanaugh and the reason behind the character assignation, from your post
it sounds more pay back time. I get it. Not sure why you pulled out the gender card. Remember Reid and Romney and
Tester and Jackson.? I bet you do, it's not a gender thing with the lies.
What evidence was thast?So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?If it's not an independent investigation it's not impartialLaughing.....check the IG report on that investigation and then talk to me.
But tell us again about the 'presumption of innocence' as your ilk chant 'LOCK HER UP!'
(snicker)
Who says it wasn't an independant investigation?
Let me guess, the same hapless soul that insisted that the investigation wasn't impartial, citing himself?
Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about. While the IG does.
Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.
Which of course, you ignored.
And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.
not me, I am a fair person. if you chose to be an asshole who believes anything you hear, then you are a fking immoral human being. We have moved on from the days of medieval trash and burn tactics. We are a civilized society. maybe you should join it.not my public opinion. yours? it's what you believe? name someone who believes with you that can justify the opinion?well you said innocent until proven guilty was only for trials. so where outside of trials is guilty until proven innocent?where does guilty until proven innocent work in our society?
Where did I say that it works anywhere in society?
And I also want one of you lefitist's to show one person on earth that has offered to help an accuser to find evidence on them?
I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.
More, guilty until proven innocent is not the only alternative. One need not presume guilt or innocence.
Where is guilty until proven innocent used? In the court of public opinion, particularly where things like partisan politics are in play. Kavanaugh is just the latest.
Finally, I am neither a leftist nor have I even hinted about an accuser helping someone find evidence against them. I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but it's clearly not the content of my posts.
What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent? Go look at any accusation against a public figure, you'll probably find people who believe they are guilty simply because of some characteristic about that person: politics, gender, race, where they work, etc. I'm not trying to support the idea of guilty until proven innocent, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.
you're right, Sandusky did it, we know he did, there is evidence he did it. he did go to court, and we did find out what everyone knew. apples and submarines to the kavanaugh discussion.Go back and reread what he stated, your comprehension skills seem to be turned off today.I'm saying just what I posted. Legally, everyone is presumed innocent until convicted of a crime; that includes Kavanaugh.
So Jerry Sandusky never molested anyone until his trial ended with a guilty verdict?
No, Sandusky was legally presumed innocent until his trial ended with a guilty verdict. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this, it's a pretty basic concept of the US legal system. Whether or not someone is actually guilty of a crime, the justice system is supposed to presume their innocence until such a time as they are convicted. That does not mean that someone did not commit a crime until they are convicted, just that the justice system presumes they did not until they are convicted.
So he never molested those boys until after the trial?
'How the fuck did you get so stupid.
Sandusky WAS guilty. From his first molestation he was guilty.
You assume innocence in a court of law. It is the starting point of a trial.
This is not a court pf law.
Sandusky was a child molester the first time he did it.
His accusers did not have witnesses. They did not have proof, Yet Sandusky WAS indeed guilty..
I believe Ford. I did not believe Kavanuagh. So I think Kavanaugh did indeed assault Ford. Is it provable in court? Maybe. But to me he is guilty based on what I heard.
I would not have hired Kavanaugh with his testimony. Not so much for something he did when he was in high school but for his lies, dishonesty, & demeanor.
Certainly we have better options in this country.
I know what you wrote. You can't seem to distinguish the presumption of innocence for a court case & innocence in real life.
You think Sandusky was innocent until found iiulty in court but in reality he was guilty before the trial even started.
He did it., He molested those kids. He did it whether or not some court said so.
Kavanaugh was NOT on trial. There can be no proof. That does not make Kavanaugh innocent.
According to you every murderer, rapist, theif never ever committed those crimes because they were never caught. That is pretty damn stupid.
not me, I am a fair person. if you chose to be an asshole who believes anything you hear, then you are a fking immoral human being. We have moved on from the days of medieval trash and burn tactics. We are a civilized society. maybe you should join it.not my public opinion. yours? it's what you believe? name someone who believes with you that can justify the opinion?well you said innocent until proven guilty was only for trials. so where outside of trials is guilty until proven innocent?Where did I say that it works anywhere in society?
And I also want one of you lefitist's to show one person on earth that has offered to help an accuser to find evidence on them?
I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.
More, guilty until proven innocent is not the only alternative. One need not presume guilt or innocence.
Where is guilty until proven innocent used? In the court of public opinion, particularly where things like partisan politics are in play. Kavanaugh is just the latest.
Finally, I am neither a leftist nor have I even hinted about an accuser helping someone find evidence against them. I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but it's clearly not the content of my posts.
What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent? Go look at any accusation against a public figure, you'll probably find people who believe they are guilty simply because of some characteristic about that person: politics, gender, race, where they work, etc. I'm not trying to support the idea of guilty until proven innocent, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.
that is a fact. Civilization has moved to civility and proof is needed to convict. not just in a trial. so don't go spanking your wanker around like it isn't. it is our society that innocent until proven guilty is how we assimilate in our neighborhoods.not me, I am a fair person. if you chose to be an asshole who believes anything you hear, then you are a fking immoral human being. We have moved on from the days of medieval trash and burn tactics. We are a civilized society. maybe you should join it.not my public opinion. yours? it's what you believe? name someone who believes with you that can justify the opinion?well you said innocent until proven guilty was only for trials. so where outside of trials is guilty until proven innocent?
And I also want one of you lefitist's to show one person on earth that has offered to help an accuser to find evidence on them?
I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.
More, guilty until proven innocent is not the only alternative. One need not presume guilt or innocence.
Where is guilty until proven innocent used? In the court of public opinion, particularly where things like partisan politics are in play. Kavanaugh is just the latest.
Finally, I am neither a leftist nor have I even hinted about an accuser helping someone find evidence against them. I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but it's clearly not the content of my posts.
What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent? Go look at any accusation against a public figure, you'll probably find people who believe they are guilty simply because of some characteristic about that person: politics, gender, race, where they work, etc. I'm not trying to support the idea of guilty until proven innocent, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.
You're clearly just looking to make your own assumptions here.
that is a fact. Civilization has moved to civility and proof is needed to convict. not just in a trial. so don't go spanking your wanker around like it isn't. it is our society that innocent until proven guilty is how we assimilate in our neighborhoods.not me, I am a fair person. if you chose to be an asshole who believes anything you hear, then you are a fking immoral human being. We have moved on from the days of medieval trash and burn tactics. We are a civilized society. maybe you should join it.not my public opinion. yours? it's what you believe? name someone who believes with you that can justify the opinion?I said that for the law, innocent until proven guilty is for trials. Anyone can use the concept, but in the legal system, it applies to trials.
More, guilty until proven innocent is not the only alternative. One need not presume guilt or innocence.
Where is guilty until proven innocent used? In the court of public opinion, particularly where things like partisan politics are in play. Kavanaugh is just the latest.
Finally, I am neither a leftist nor have I even hinted about an accuser helping someone find evidence against them. I don't know what you think you are arguing against, but it's clearly not the content of my posts.
What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent? Go look at any accusation against a public figure, you'll probably find people who believe they are guilty simply because of some characteristic about that person: politics, gender, race, where they work, etc. I'm not trying to support the idea of guilty until proven innocent, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.
You're clearly just looking to make your own assumptions here.
I will live my life that way indeed. I will even give fks like you the benefit of a doubt. Cause I believe in not trusting another human being. It's been proven through history and why society moved to its current position of innocent until proven guilty. Again, sane humans require evidence to ruin another's life. you don't, well good for you. I' will still give you the benefit of a doubt.that is a fact. Civilization has moved to civility and proof is needed to convict. not just in a trial. so don't go spanking your wanker around like it isn't. it is our society that innocent until proven guilty is how we assimilate in our neighborhoods.not me, I am a fair person. if you chose to be an asshole who believes anything you hear, then you are a fking immoral human being. We have moved on from the days of medieval trash and burn tactics. We are a civilized society. maybe you should join it.not my public opinion. yours? it's what you believe? name someone who believes with you that can justify the opinion?
What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent? Go look at any accusation against a public figure, you'll probably find people who believe they are guilty simply because of some characteristic about that person: politics, gender, race, where they work, etc. I'm not trying to support the idea of guilty until proven innocent, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.
You're clearly just looking to make your own assumptions here.
You can tell yourself that, but from what I've seen, an unfortunately large portion of the population is perfectly comfortable considering people guilty until proven innocent if they fit into the proper box. Even if society doesn't do that, this board certainly does!
At best, people have very different definitions of what proof is. More commonly, IMO, people are more than willing to look at things through the lens of partisanship or bigotry.
I will live my life that way indeed. I will even give fks like you the benefit of a doubt. Cause I believe in not trusting another human being. It's been proven through history and why society moved to its current position of innocent until proven guilty. Again, sane humans require evidence to ruin another's life. you don't, well good for you. I' will still give you the benefit of a doubt.that is a fact. Civilization has moved to civility and proof is needed to convict. not just in a trial. so don't go spanking your wanker around like it isn't. it is our society that innocent until proven guilty is how we assimilate in our neighborhoods.not me, I am a fair person. if you chose to be an asshole who believes anything you hear, then you are a fking immoral human being. We have moved on from the days of medieval trash and burn tactics. We are a civilized society. maybe you should join it.What are you trying to say? Justify what opinion, that sometimes public opinion treats people as guilty until proven innocent? Go look at any accusation against a public figure, you'll probably find people who believe they are guilty simply because of some characteristic about that person: politics, gender, race, where they work, etc. I'm not trying to support the idea of guilty until proven innocent, I'm merely pointing out that it happens.
You're clearly just looking to make your own assumptions here.
You can tell yourself that, but from what I've seen, an unfortunately large portion of the population is perfectly comfortable considering people guilty until proven innocent if they fit into the proper box. Even if society doesn't do that, this board certainly does!
At best, people have very different definitions of what proof is. More commonly, IMO, people are more than willing to look at things through the lens of partisanship or bigotry.
