this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
42 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3229 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

His statement is the objectively correct side of morality and the law. Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. If you disagree with this notion you have no place in any society created after the 1600s.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Okay, I don't disagree with the statement on the face of it, that's not what I was reacting to. Why say anything at all, if you are Jeffries? It's not like it's going to come out that it was all a big misunderstanding.

E: alright, I misread the context, fair points

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

There's no way the House Minority Leader isn't going to get questions on this. Seems pretty reasonable to get a public statement out.

[–] eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Because he's a New York politician asked for comment about a person he's previously disagreed with very publicly.

[–] take6056@feddit.nl -2 points 1 month ago

Plenty of society's after the 1600s, that had people and rulers who disagreed with that notion.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

No. I don't need to take you to court to prove that you can't spell 'escape' in your username, for example. It's just an obvious fact.

You can't reduce reality to legal issues and then the fact of having committed an unpleasant actions to legal outcomes. Israel could literally blow up courts which start proceedings in terms of international law against the country, for example, that wouldn't alter the reality of the evidence against Israel.

If you hit me with your car and I die, and there are witness, you did wrong regardless of what the court says.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Innocent and guilty have formal legal definitions and informal, everyday ones. OJ Simpson was found innocent of murder, but I think it’s probably pretty likely that he did it with intent. Those can both be true.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you for restating what I said, I appreciate it.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s surprising that you intended to agree with the original commenter whom you replied to, but sometimes it do be like that.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

The commenter with the mis-spelled username? They're not worth listening to.

[–] eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

Incorrect, the reason we don't live in the reality you describe is witness testimony is unreliable, and mob justice fails every time it's tried.

You are innocent until proven guilty. Period. Otherwise I can just say you killed my uncle and kill you in response to that made up event.