• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is “hearsay” better than direct evidence?

Is “hearsay” better than direct evidence?

  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
mrjurrs said:
So you have nothing...thanks for playing
Click to expand...

I have exactly the same amount of facts as you do. I just point out that you believe your BS and insist that others also do.

The only "playing" here is by you attempting to push your falsehoods.
 
Arjay81 said:
And altered to suit Schiff's agenda, since he interrupts opposing testimony any time it is going in a direction that he, personally, does not like.
Click to expand...

No, he interrupts when questioning moves toward the WB. Totally within the rules. Read em and weep.
 
SDET said:
Hearsay is just as good as physical evidence when you have decided the verdict in advance.
Click to expand...

That's a good one. What case is awaiting a verdict?
 
I voted yes because hearsay is good when it benefits the "correct" party.

The mainstream media lets us know - on a constant, droning basis - what the correct and proper party is.
 
mrjurrs said:
No, he interrupts when questioning moves toward the WB. Totally within the rules. Read em and weep.
Click to expand...

Totally within the rules he has changed to suit his own agenda. Read the "rules" prior to the start of this coup and see, and weep.
 
Arjay81 said:
Totally within the rules he has changed to suit his own agenda. Read the "rules" prior to the start of this coup and see, and weep.
Click to expand...

Stick to your guns (even if the barrels are filled with stupid). Start with defining coup, and then tell me how it's progressing.
 
Hearsay and circumstantial evidence are very important. Ask any innocent in our prison system about those.
 
mrjurrs said:
Stick to your guns (even if the barrels are filled with stupid). Start with defining coup, and then tell me how it's progressing.
Click to expand...

Once again, try sticking to the topic, if you can.

And, once again resorting to attempted insults just show how desperate you have become.

As for the coup, this "inquiry" is exposing it to all who do not let the democrats do their thinking for them. This, of course, excludes you. You believe whatever your party tells you to believe, the more false the better by their and your standards.
 
Arjay81 said:
Your denial only goes to act as evidence of the truth that I have spoken.

BTW, back to the thread topic, what (as if I couldn't guess) is your answer? Have having to disturb your rants by returning to the topic as it does not allow for your continued hate to be spread.
Click to expand...

We're back to the whole thing about me not giving a crap.
 
I hate to participate in this type of post, but here's the reality: None of this is hearsay. We're talking about putting together the connective pieces with multiple sources/witnesses. If Trump was really the innocent flower the Trumpists claim him to be, then he should testify in front of congress and explain why the money was being frozen in the first place. He should explain why he engaged in solicitation with a foreign government, and why was his action there, were perfectly legal. But he's not doing that, and the reason is obvious.

For Trumpists who cannot comprehend what I am saying, think about this: A husband kills his wife. It happened within their own house. Nobody actually saw the killing. Nobody saw the body being thrown into the ocean. We have witnesses seeing the husband drive off late at night. DNA evidence is all over the body, linking the husband to the killing. The husband cannot coherently explain why he was driving out late at night. If we were to go by their logic, the husband should be set free, because nobody saw the actual killing or him disposing of the body.
 
Hamish Howl said:
We're back to the whole thing about me not giving a crap.
Click to expand...

Then why do you continue to enter the conversation? Or continuing to try to dispel you lies?

Either way, you have shown yourself to be nothing more that that piece of crap you continue to mention.
 
Arjay81 said:
Then why do you continue to enter the conversation? Or continuing to try to dispel you lies?

Either way, you have shown yourself to be nothing more that that piece of crap you continue to mention.
Click to expand...

I'd think the answer to that would be obvious.
 
Praxas said:
Do police use hearsay in gathering information for an investigation? Yes

An impeachment inquiry is not a trial. .
Click to expand...

it will be soon

Then there will be some sanity
 
Has anyone noticed who voted NO? The vast majority are not leftwingers. That means very few leftwingers voted, meaning we kind of know where the non-voting lefties stand. "By any means necessary" to get their political agenda in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom