politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Less "euphemism" and more technically correct legal term. It hasn't been proven in a court of law, and he hasn't publicly admitted guilt, even though there is (allegedly) film of him doing it. And to be clear I'm not saying he didn't do it, he very obviously did, but news sites (good ones) have to be specific with their statements.
We really need a better word for "did it, but a court hasn't found them guilty."
I find it absolutely disgusting that anybody would have any kind words or try to muddy the waters in any way shape or form about the awful thing. This man was recorded on camera.
You were today years old when you found out what innocent until proven guilty means. Not just as words, but as a concept. It means even the most obviously guilty person is given the presumption of innocence until they are actually convicted. Would you like to hear some ridiculous but technically possible arguments? Maybe it was his twin brother who drugged the kids. Maybe it was a random person who looks like him. Maybe it was a faked recording. Maybe he had a mental breakdown. None likely, obviously, but each are valid defenses that need to be eliminated to prove guilt. Unless you want to live in a different legal system where they believe it is better for an innocent person to go to jail as opposed to a guilty person sometimes going free.
Ok well put I retract my previous statement. Thank you for taking the time to educate me, most people probably wouldn’t have Taking the time and/or listened, but thank you
Oh no, how terrible for media to follow standards in reporting when it comes to criminal suspects, rather than throwing these standards overboard and allowing for witch hunts. Because that would never backfire onto the people at large...
He is on tape. I’m done with you.
Thank you for going to bat for the probably pedophile old man who slipped drugs in his daughter’s ice cream, you really look good defending this man in any way shape or form, You’re doing such a great job
You're welcome! It helps if you read the full comment instead of stopping halfway through.
I retract my previous statement, but I’m going to leave it up as a testament to my idiocy