Posted on 11/11/2017 2:22:09 PM PST by Lazamataz
It read like something straight out of "The Onion".
"Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections."
So spake Mitt Romney, would-be King of the Establishment Republicans.
This one sentence shows a complete betrayal of all American mores and morals. In every walk of life -- law, elections, even reputations -- Americans have cherished the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty. This shows how dangerous Establishment Republicans are. They are every bit as dangerous as the most liberal Democrat.... and if given enough freedom to act, they would happily join Democrats in rounding up and killing Conservatives.
Right now, such a sentiment is reserved for Roy Moore, who clearly is the Establishment's second-worst nightmare (the first being Donald Trump).
Frankly, I'm surprised that Mitt Romney -- or as I like to call him, Mitt (R)Money -- didn't go a half-step further, and declare Roy Moore "Guilty, even if proven innocent."
The last year and a half have been the most revealing in all of American politics. We have certain proof that there is but one party in Washington, we have certain proof that they are more than happy to ignore voters wishes and even the results of elections, we have certain proof that they will stop at nothing to thwart the common citizen and their will.
It reveals a very dangerous situation, a situation that shows that the Establishmenty is completely unrestrained by American customs, laws, and basic moral fairness. I suspect that the Establishment would even allow a systemic collapse of America. "Better to burn it and rule over ashes," they think, "then to lose power."
If citizens sieze back government from these Esablishment Elites, let us use their words against them. We will not consider individuals such as Mitt Romney innocent until proven guilty. We will consider him guilty, and sentence him accordingly.
While you are correct, and that it is one thing that a person can make a voting decision on any criteria, it is another thing entirely to encourage a uniquely un-American concept -- that innocent until proven guilty does not matter.
Return?
The left and rino right are willing to destroy by ruining their target’s reputation, their living, without proof or assessment of mitigating circumstances.
We must rid the country of these Swampers with every legal and moral means available.
Thanks Laz. I know what you mean. I get so pissed at RINOS like Romney and McLame that I can’t even see straight.
I’d say it is true in theory but if you have one party that will lie, cheat and steal this plays RIGHT IN THERE HANDS...
The thing is, that he’s correct.
In a republic, where the electorate decides, there is justice, investigation and vetting.
In a democrazy the people get to decide. And people decide based on all sorts of garbage - Including “He just skeeves me out. Here is a communist that I would ‘like to have a beer with’”.
of our current 535 legislators only 3 should be there. The rest are trash.
To this very day we are supposed to believe that Gary Condit didn’t kill Chandra Levy, and that Hillary Clinton is totally innocent in everything she has ever done.
And do we ? Nope. In our screwed up world, people get away with anything and everything.
Well, got me there. LOL. Maybe growth?
(repeated from another post)
While you are correct, and that it is one thing that a person can make a voting decision on any criteria, it is another thing entirely to encourage a uniquely un-American concept -- that innocent until proven guilty does not matter.
Romney....like Drudge has also become a major Swamp player. He is huffing and puffing as hard as he can to blow the Conservative House and Senate down.
Watch Drudge. He’s been captured by the swamp creatures.
What you did there?
I see it.
LOL!
____
You are right. And along those lines, I regret to have to say that I continually worry about the President's safety.
I don't trust these lefty/Globalist/totalitarians one bit.
They are the worst of people, and those sick types get desperate and do awful things to reach their ends. They do not see wining with moral deeds as important whatsoever.
Please tell me this delightful irony was intentional.
_______
lol
Actually, that Republicans occasionally eat their own is one of the few good things left about the party.
One of the few things that separates Republican swamp dwellers from Democrat swamp dwellers.
The difficulty lay in the standard of evidence acceptable.
For Republicans, even when they are not hyper sensitized, the standard is in political matters properly a stink test no matter if it is a Rublicans or Democrat under consideration. It is true: in politics there shouldn’t be a presumption of innocence ... that really is for criminal matters just as it should be, but often isn’t in people’s zeal to get a pound of flesh out of the bad guys, in civil matters.
With Democrats they employ a double standard: when considering Democrats it is often that without conviction the evidence is not acceptable as evidence. Thus you see them tout the lack of CONVICTIONS during Democrat administrations. Simply: they do not accept evidence that can be given because it is not somehow proven in a court of law. The same is often true in theological matters as well: the evidence that is acceptable as evidence is so qualified that functionally evidences (which are acceptable) may not be given.
Conversely, the left most definitely employs a stink test in matters where us “not we” to their “we” are concerned. Thus you see the often speak about the many INVESTIGATIONS of Republicans (keeping in mind that Republicans don’t abhor investigating Republicans as a rule as they frequently have a fundamental break in attitude with Democrats when it comes to their own) as if proof, the occasional conviction or ejection from office as proof of a more general principal (of corruption), and in general the failings of Republicans are seen as hypocricy though them not caring about the misdeeds of Democrats is NOT seen as hypocricy. Likewise we see such assertions that women don’t lie about rape go completely out the door if the accusee is on the right (or “left”) side of when the seriousness of the charges matter.
So why does this matter? Well, Republicans still accept stink test more or less unconditionally ... this isn’t a bad thing; but, as Democrats (leftists) prejudice evidence, are frequently immune to evidence against leftist even as they are rhetorically easy going with respect to evidence against not-we this inherently biases the political and cultural terrain against non-leftist simply because these two groups co-exist.
The answer isn’t to become more like Democrats though, for two bads can’t make a neutral.
The left will be bad. As with the victim mentality there comes a point when you must let go of hope they will reform and just let the glue that we’ve hoped still binds us all fall away, for it has been some time that it has bound them to us except as a matter of convenience to them when conviviality in politics and governance serves their purposes.
Being deluded that old ideals of the common culture means something still doesn’t make it so and this is seen in how the social contracts the left speak of only grow in scope and invasiveness, with the sole exception of who is doing who or what (sexual escapades now basically being the best exemplar of the chasing after happiness many acknowledge) they never retreat or let something remain a matter not for government authority.
To this end we must NOT become creatures of emotion as they are but we must learn to accept incrementalism, only in roll back to their advance, and deal with them as enemies to all we hold dear, for politically that’s what progressivism has been (at least with respect to governance by constitutional means) since it appeared in the 19th century.
Don’t hate, just don’t care. Don’t tolerate what positive tolerance is demanded for. “Tolerance” is not a virtue even though it is to the left THE virtue, only challenged by a “niceness” that can be at once murderous and libertine even at it is practically puritanical when it comes to want of tolerating Liberty and associations that dares not need or want progressivism.
but to reject the left’s whole world view. To dissolve the glue that might give a false sense of having something in common with them by NOT CARING about their political views and wants, working to simply defeat them as enemies without the emotions
by separating from their poisons within rather than be poisoned by the expression of their ideologies. Not caring
I also reject the left’s world-view, to include Mitt (R)Money’s.
Yep
Oh, and I did not address the rest of your missive inasmuch as it proceeds from an invalid premise: That there are two parties in Washington DC.
I wouldn’t matter what the allegations were, Mittens would pop up out of his hole and support the GOP-E Uniparty without any data or proof.
.
.
.
Just like he did in supporting the violent ANTIFA that traveled to Charlottesville to commit violence against a small group who had a permit to protest removing Lee’s statue.
Oops ... the last two lines shouldn’t have survived edit.
Gary Condit didn’t kill Chandra Levy
.
.
Are you serious?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.