• 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!

What do you consider to be "EVIDENCE"?

Lovebug

Lovebug

Be humble and kind
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
43,478
Reaction score
32,305
Location
TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
What is evidence? Proof, facts, confirmation of facts or bias?
 
Lovebug said:
What is evidence? Proof, facts, confirmation of facts or bias?
Click to expand...
"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Now what did you actually want the thread to be about?
 
A live confession on national television, though technically that would be hearsay. And invalid by virtue of being compelled by forced unknown.
 
Proof of bias can be evidence in itself as defined by rules of logic.
 
Lovebug said:
What is evidence? Proof, facts, confirmation of facts or bias?
Click to expand...

I see evidence as clues that may or may not lead you to proof.

As related to the impeachment trial, they have lots of unchallenged evidence, but no proof. They know this is being used as a vehicle to smear their opponent in 2020, and assuming a republican wins in 2024, will be used to smear again.

They know because they are presenting a vacuous case than cannot win, but are doing it anyway.

In the future, if the democrats have the votes, they will hone their technique to pressure or remove federal judges.

It’s all about the power to reward your friends and punish your enemies.
 
Evidence and proof are different.
 
Lovebug said:
What is evidence? Proof, facts, confirmation of facts or bias?
Click to expand...

I can tell you what is not evidence, hearsay, opinions (except from an expert such as a medical doctor), speculation.

Evidence is Bolton's testimony of what he heard and saw. Not what he felt or a presumption of what was said.
If it was Bolton v. Trump in the room, credibility of the witnesses is a factor. Trumps word against that of Bolton.
If there were others in the room, can the other witnesses confirm Bolton's allegations?
 
chuckiechan said:
I see evidence as clues that may or may not lead you to proof.

As related to the impeachment trial, they have lots of unchallenged evidence, but no proof. They know this is being used as a vehicle to smear their opponent in 2020, and assuming a republican wins in 2024, will be used to smear again.

They know because they are presenting a vacuous case than cannot win, but are doing it anyway.

In the future, if the democrats have the votes, they will hone their technique to pressure or remove federal judges.

It’s all about the power to reward your friends and punish your enemies.
Click to expand...

Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief of proposition is true or valid.
Proof is defined as evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
 
Outlook said:
If there were others in the room, can the other witnesses confirm Bolton's allegations?
Click to expand...

The way Trump's lawyers are talking ("even if this is true"), Bolton has tapes.
 
I don't know how much more evidence people need to show President Trump is once again being rail roaded. You have his word, you have the word of Ukraine President, you have other Ukraine officials (several times I might add) that there was no threats, they felt no pressure, they like President Trump. On top of all that there's a transcript.....However for those who still have doubts...I don't think the Republicans could have done a better job taking every lie Dems stated in the Senate and showed us what they said, told us how it was a lie and in most cases showed there own people making statement to prove they new what they were saying was a lie. I'm sorry maybe I gave the average Democrats to much credit if you can not see how corrupt your leaders are...well your probably on the right team

Sent from my G9 using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
A live confession on national television, though technically that would be hearsay. And invalid by virtue of being compelled by forced unknown.
Click to expand...

But but but, you guys have already said that Trump confessed.
 
Moderate Right said:
To the left, evidence would be Bolton saying that he presumed Trump meant a quid pro quo.
Click to expand...
Of course it was a quid pro quo, everyone knows that by now.

Mulvaney even told you it was a quid pr quo, and to get over it.
You're not over it yet apparently.
 
Mach said:
Of course it was a quid pro quo, everyone knows that by now.

Mulvaney even told you it was a quid pr quo, and to get over it.
You're not over it yet apparently.
Click to expand...

Your post seems to have nothing to do with the thread.
 
Lovebug said:
What is evidence? Proof, facts, confirmation of facts or bias?
Click to expand...

Evidence can be anything that pertains to the question being asked. Some evidence is unacceptable under certain rules, because it's validity is questionable for one reason or another. But which evidence is allowed and which not depends on the ruleset being used.

Evidence is usually disallowed because it's validity is unable to be determined, or is determined to be flawed.
 
Moderate Right said:
To the left, evidence would be Bolton saying that he presumed Trump meant a quid pro quo.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to figure what it is Dems see when they listen to there party leaders for 3 years now. Within last 6 months I have realized we are both saying the same about the other. So now I am trying to understand what facts and evidence they see. In the impeachment for example, the Republicans I thought were awsome at taking each point and showing the dems themselves starting something else that shows they were lieing, along with documents and testimony from the people they have claimed are the victims....what are they hearing or seeing that I am not. Becuase until we see where the opposition is comming from, we wont get past thinking the other side has lost there freaking minds

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk
 
Mach said:
Of course it was a quid pro quo, everyone knows that by now.

Mulvaney even told you it was a quid pr quo, and to get over it.
You're not over it yet apparently.
Click to expand...

Quid pro Quo; as in clean up corruption and use the money we send as intended? If so, any President we've had, who didn't, was a waster of hard earned tax dollars and a fool!
Regards,
CP
 
Am I wrong or isn't every deal in a way the exact definition of quid pro quo.

Sent from my G9 using Tapatalk
 
concernedpuma said:
I may agree with you(and I think I do), but to what rule(s) of logic are you referring?

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

The Law of Common sense is what I refer to. Why is common sense not common among the people we elect to office? I guess because you have to have a huge ego and sense of self-importance to run for office. Then there's the graft of course - name a modern day DC politician who's taken office as a pauper and didn't leave very well off. Watch Ocasio Cortez she complained about the high rents when she moved to DC and I'm betting she's worth a $million before the year's out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom