The photo is much better than the painted portrait purchased through a purported charity a while back.

And as I've said many times, how can he even be part of a contest, if he doesn't agree to abide by the rules, which he patently ignores and flouts. Wouldn't even be allowed into a tennis tournament with that attitude, let alone an election for public office. — Wayfarer

From where I'm sitting Trump looks more and more the undefeatable superhero, the rebel, the outlaw, the legend. Where we're going, we don't need facts...

The fact that so many people are prepared to believe it is one of his weapons, so I refuse to. Besides leading in the polls is as much because he gets 24x7 media coverage. When it comes to the voting booth we might see another story. (If he were on the ballot, which I also don't believe.)

I'm eager for the orange jumpsuit edition.

I wonder if they truly believe it or that they just hate their own lives and Democrats so much. As we say in Dutch "a cornered cat makes weird jumps".

:lol: Great saying, very apt. As we say in English, people can ‘turn a blind eye’ when faced with something they don’t want to know. Astonishing numbers of people are turning a blind eye to Trump’s transgressions.

I have to admit, that mugshot is exactly on brand.

I wonder how long he practiced for that?

I wonder if they truly believe it or that they just hate their own lives and Democrats so much. As we say in Dutch "a cornered cat makes weird jumps". — Benkei

I think many have been convinced - or convinced themselves - that the current political and economic system is moribund and that Trump is their best hope to wreck it.

They're not entirely wrong.

Astonishing numbers of people are turning a blind eye to Trump’s transgressions. — Wayfarer

Under the above analysis, transgressions actually increase Trump's appeal.

I wonder how long he practiced for that? — Echarmion

Perhaps he is wearing a mask:



Or if we follow Oscar Wilde, perhaps he has taken one off.

The presumption of innocence means he has the right to defend himself against the charges in a court of law. That is exactly what is happening.

It's a presumption in court only. We can think whatever we want.

Yup. That is why I said that NOS is conflating "much talk" with the judicial process.

Unmasked years ago ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64411569 :smirk:

:up:

The presumption of innocence means he has the right to defend himself against the charges in a court of law. That is exactly what is happening.

That means you hold it true of some men and not others. Two sets of standards.

One standard that applies to everyone including Trump.

One standard that applies to those who prosecute in courts, but to no one else. Only they should presume innocence. Only they require the burden of proof.

The Trump campaign is already selling merch of his mugshot. It will go down as one of the most famous shots in American history. I’m buying for posterity.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/24/trump-already-selling-merch-featuring-his-mug-shot/amp/

The Trump campaign is already selling merch of his mugshot. It will go down as one of the most famous shots in American history. I’m buying for posterity. — NOS4A2

$25 for just a coffee mug. Jesus Christ...
The price of the t-shirt is $34, holy molly!

He litterally surrendered himself to authorities but the shirts say NEVER SURRENDER! :chin:

Another incongruity, Trump's arrest record states that he is 6 feet, 3 inches tall and weighs 215 pounds. However, as reported in April, after being arrested in an unrelated case in New York, he was 6 feet, 2 inches and weighed 240 pounds—suggesting Trump has gained an inch and lost 25 pounds in little over three months.

I bought an official space force hat for $25 back in 2018 or something and sold it for around $250 last year.

That's a great mugshot. I'm going to remember it in case I'm arrested.

One standard that applies to those who prosecute in courts, but to no one else. Only they should presume innocence. Only they require the burden of proof. — NOS4A2

Are you claiming that those who are prosecuting should presume he is innocent? How does that work? Should they not look for or present evidence of his crimes because he cannot be guilty because he is presumed innocent?

Are you claiming that since we are not prosecutors we should not presume he is innocent?

I meant to say the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, or anyone who makes accusations against others. Those who presume innocence should be everyone else. But apparently it’s different according to some degree of statism or other. It applies only to the state, juries, judges, courts. Anyone else it does not nor ought not apply.

Does that makes sense?

The judge and jury should presume innocence until proven guilty. Not prosecutors and not the general public.

Assuming you're actually interested in this:

Presumption of innocence is explicitly a protection of the individual against the state and meant to hold those that wield the ultimate violence of the state to the most exacting standard.

Notably it's not an epistemological principle. It's not an effective way to judge in general. Applying it as a practical principle in your everyday life is liable to produce very skewed results.

Exactly how we should deal with accusations, notably including of criminal behaviour, is a question that "presumption of innocence" cannot answer.

Does that makes sense? — NOS4A2

NO.

The prosecution does have the burden of proof. We do not. There is, for example, no burden for us to trust someone we suspect of being a con man until we are able to prove his guilt.

If we are on the jury the presumption of innocence means that we should decide whether someone is guilty on the basis of the evidence presented, not on whatever it is we may presume.

So you do not believe the burden of proof should lie with an accuser?

Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that applies to the judge and jury in a trial, and it is a good principle to have. But let's not apply it inappropriately. If taken to an extreme, no prosecutor would ever indict anyone because he would presume all are innocent since they haven't been proven to be guilty yet. Why would you indict someone when you presume they are innocent?

No, in the sense that I don't think "burden of proof" is a useful standard to apply generally.

Fair enough, though I think dismissing the burden of proof is a bad idea when it comes to making claims, especially one’s that involve accusations against human beings.

Republicans favourite news channel works that way: "some people say [insert claim accusing people]"



Some people say Trump sucked Giulani's cock.

That's a great mugshot. I'm going to remember it in case I'm arrested. — T Clark

or this one for the original teflon don