First you tried to claim "you don’t fucking get arrested unless they have some proof to back it up. Period.". You're claiming that he's "obviously guilty" by virtue of being arrested. The "Period" really sells it. You sound all in on the idea that simply being arrested is more than enough proof of "obvious guilt".
Then it became "he admitted to it". So regardless of whether you left it out originally or not, you changed your argument to this. Now he's "obviously guilty" because he admitted it, not because he was arrested.
Even if that really is what you originally meant (doubt) and you didn't just find it out after making your first argument it still makes your argument dumb for leaving it out in the first place. There are two ways to sentence somebody and determine guilt; Prove it in court with a fair trial where each side is represented as best as possible, or a guilty plea. Outside of those, there is no "obviously guilty" (Save for things like video proof (of which we have none)). But if you knew that one of those were met why would you not mention that in your first argument or any of your earlier comments? And don't give me some dumb shit about how me not knowing makes me dumb. It's not my job to make your argument for you.
And, upon looking at your original comment, even there you only mentioned that he was arrested and should therefore be "stripped of [his] shit". Nothing like "he literally admitted he was guilty why is he not stripped of his power/position?". Up until several comments down you were all in and consistent on it being the fact he was arrested with absolutely no mention of his admission of guilt. So it's pretty clear at this point what you were saying.
Our legal system, like the rest of the country, was set up very carefully by people much smarter than you or me. The Founders knew what they were doing and they believed in "innocent until proven guilty", as it should be.
Now obviously sentencing and proving guilt in court isn't directly related to public opinion and what people think of others' guilt, but the concept should still apply in all areas since it's fundamentally fair. You can have suspicions and hunches but to declare that someone is "obviously guilty" is completely unfair if you have no proof to go on other than "I think so" or "he got arrested". If you do have proof or admission of guilt then that should be presented right along with the initial assertion. If you don't offer any of these you can expect people to respond bringing up innocent until proven guilty. Especially if you say that a punishment should be doled out despite the lack of a fair trial because the person is "obviously guilty".
In the end, you either believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or you believe in "obvious guilt". It can't be both. They're incompatible.
You argue like a leftist and are just going in circles at this point making completely preposterous claims and half-baked, illogical points that anyone with half a brain cell could tell are false while also ignoring what I'm saying/the points I'm making, moving the goalposts, and changing the topic. I really hope you're a shill because if you're not you take the cake for the biggest idiot on our side.
Like, frankly, you are the 4-6% that will be lost, unable to be woken up. When the actual truth comes out and it doesn't line 100% up with what you think you'll probably start screeching calling all the people releasing the real truth that's been hidden for so long blind idiots who are just retarded and stupid and they're just big dumb idiots and they can't see what's right in front of them and REEEEE
Sure, that's why you left out the truth from your first several comments. Instead of presenting it for people who are unaware. Because you care so much about the truth. Makes perfect sense.
I'm also not the one who started with innocent until proven guilty, that was another person (as well as a couple of others who agreed) who also thought you were full of shit, had no sauce, and were advocating punishment for people with no proof or trial conducted. (Where is the sauce by the way? All I could find on him "admitting it" was some random news article saying he was recorded admitting it. They didn't actually have the recording though.)
You also don't know how getting arrested works it seems since there are dozens of patriots being held against their will right now, with no speedy trial, no visitation, and kept in solitary for 23 hours a day for simply being in D.C. on the 6th. How's that probable cause going for you? And again, probable cause isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed (plenty of court cases where the verdict is "not guilty". Hmm... how did that happen? I thought the cops had the evidence when they arrested people?). If it was the police would take you straight to prison, with no courtroom involved. There are also the cases where someone is pressured into admitting to something they didn't do (I don't think he's doing this) or are just flat out saying they did something they actually didn't. Lies can go anywhere and be anything so who knows. Now, again, that's not to say this guy is doing that. He is very, very likely telling the truth when he says he did it (If he said he did it, still pending sauce on that) though it's technically possible he lied. But the point is that it's much more complicated than, and there is no, "he's obviously guilty" in virtually any situation and you nor I really have any fucking clue what happened based on looking at pixels from behind our computer or phone screens (Unless the pixels are a video or photograph of it happening, which they aren't). All of this is why the legal system exists. To figure these complex situations out. If people could be "obviously guilty" there'd be no reason for certain people to be allowed a court trial. "He admitted it to the cops? Send him right off to prison with no trial then. What? He had a gun to his head when he made the recording because someone wanted to frame him to take eyes away from their own crimes? No no no, we don't want to hear that, he's already in prison and the police said he did it and showed the evidence, case closed." (This is another example, I don't think that this was the situation either)
And what you still don't realize is that this specific situation with the guy that this post is about is completely irrelevant. All your premises are complete bullshit so it doesn't matter whether he's guilty or not. That isn't, and never was, the point that the original guy and I were making in response to your top-level comment. (which again we were making to what you actually typed, not all the shit you left out of the comment that you then assumed we knew despite you not mentioning it)
And you continue to show that you fundamentally don't give a flying shit about innocent until proven guilty. You know better and we should just punish these people with no trial and no defense on their part (which, yes, they are still entitled to even if they admitted out of court that they did it (still waiting for the sauce on that)).
P.S. I'm surprised it took you this long to hit me with the "pedo defender REEEEEE" line. Also love the part where you make fun of the innocent until proven guilty comments, further digging that hole showing you give no shits about the concept. And I'm still not completely convinced you knew he admitted it when you made your first comment and didn't just add that after to make your original comments sound more reasonable.
First you tried to claim "you don’t fucking get arrested unless they have some proof to back it up. Period.". You're claiming that he's "obviously guilty" by virtue of being arrested. The "Period" really sells it. You sound all in on the idea that simply being arrested is more than enough proof of "obvious guilt".
Then it became "he admitted to it". So regardless of whether you left it out originally or not, you changed your argument to this. Now he's "obviously guilty" because he admitted it, not because he was arrested.
Even if that really is what you originally meant (doubt) and you didn't just find it out after making your first argument it still makes your argument dumb for leaving it out in the first place. There are two ways to sentence somebody and determine guilt; Prove it in court with a fair trial where each side is represented as best as possible, or a guilty plea. Outside of those, there is no "obviously guilty" (Save for things like video proof (of which we have none)). But if you knew that one of those were met why would you not mention that in your first argument or any of your earlier comments? And don't give me some dumb shit about how me not knowing makes me dumb. It's not my job to make your argument for you.
And, upon looking at your original comment, even there you only mentioned that he was arrested and should therefore be "stripped of [his] shit". Nothing like "he literally admitted he was guilty why is he not stripped of his power/position?". Up until several comments down you were all in and consistent on it being the fact he was arrested with absolutely no mention of his admission of guilt. So it's pretty clear at this point what you were saying.
Our legal system, like the rest of the country, was set up very carefully by people much smarter than you or me. The Founders knew what they were doing and they believed in "innocent until proven guilty", as it should be.
Now obviously sentencing and proving guilt in court isn't directly related to public opinion and what people think of others' guilt, but the concept should still apply in all areas since it's fundamentally fair. You can have suspicions and hunches but to declare that someone is "obviously guilty" is completely unfair if you have no proof to go on other than "I think so" or "he got arrested". If you do have proof or admission of guilt then that should be presented right along with the initial assertion. If you don't offer any of these you can expect people to respond bringing up innocent until proven guilty. Especially if you say that a punishment should be doled out despite the lack of a fair trial because the person is "obviously guilty".
In the end, you either believe in "innocent until proven guilty" or you believe in "obvious guilt". It can't be both. They're incompatible.
You argue like a leftist and are just going in circles at this point making completely preposterous claims and half-baked, illogical points that anyone with half a brain cell could tell are false while also ignoring what I'm saying/the points I'm making, moving the goalposts, and changing the topic. I really hope you're a shill because if you're not you take the cake for the biggest idiot on our side.
Like, frankly, you are the 4-6% that will be lost, unable to be woken up. When the actual truth comes out and it doesn't line 100% up with what you think you'll probably start screeching calling all the people releasing the real truth that's been hidden for so long blind idiots who are just retarded and stupid and they're just big dumb idiots and they can't see what's right in front of them and REEEEE
Sure, that's why you left out the truth from your first several comments. Instead of presenting it for people who are unaware. Because you care so much about the truth. Makes perfect sense.
I'm also not the one who started with innocent until proven guilty, that was another person (as well as a couple of others who agreed) who also thought you were full of shit, had no sauce, and were advocating punishment for people with no proof or trial conducted. (Where is the sauce by the way? All I could find on him "admitting it" was some random news article saying he was recorded admitting it. They didn't actually have the recording though.)
You also don't know how getting arrested works it seems since there are dozens of patriots being held against their will right now, with no speedy trial, no visitation, and kept in solitary for 23 hours a day for simply being in D.C. on the 6th. How's that probable cause going for you? And again, probable cause isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed (plenty of court cases where the verdict is "not guilty". Hmm... how did that happen? I thought the cops had the evidence when they arrested people?). If it was the police would take you straight to prison, with no courtroom involved. There are also the cases where someone is pressured into admitting to something they didn't do (I don't think he's doing this) or are just flat out saying they did something they actually didn't. Lies can go anywhere and be anything so who knows. Now, again, that's not to say this guy is doing that. He is very, very likely telling the truth when he says he did it (If he said he did it, still pending sauce on that) though it's technically possible he lied. But the point is that it's much more complicated than, and there is no, "he's obviously guilty" in virtually any situation and you nor I really have any fucking clue what happened based on looking at pixels from behind our computer or phone screens (Unless the pixels are a video or photograph of it happening, which they aren't). All of this is why the legal system exists. To figure these complex situations out. If people could be "obviously guilty" there'd be no reason for certain people to be allowed a court trial. "He admitted it to the cops? Send him right off to prison with no trial then. What? He had a gun to his head when he made the recording because someone wanted to frame him to take eyes away from their own crimes? No no no, we don't want to hear that, he's already in prison and the police said he did it and showed the evidence, case closed." (This is another example, I don't think that this was the situation either)
And what you still don't realize is that this specific situation with the guy that this post is about is completely irrelevant. All your premises are complete bullshit so it doesn't matter whether he's guilty or not. That isn't, and never was, the point that the original guy and I were making in response to your top-level comment. (which again we were making to what you actually typed, not all the shit you left out of the comment that you then assumed we knew despite you not mentioning it)
And you continue to show that you fundamentally don't give a flying shit about innocent until proven guilty. You know better and we should just punish these people with no trial and no defense on their part (which, yes, they are still entitled to even if they admitted out of court that they did it (still waiting for the sauce on that)).
P.S. I'm surprised it took you this long to hit me with the "pedo defender REEEEEE" line. Also love the part where you make fun of the innocent until proven guilty comments, further digging that hole showing you give no shits about the concept. And I'm still not completely convinced you knew he admitted it when you made your first comment and didn't just add that after to make your original comments sound more reasonable.