(10-18-2017 08:19 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: First off, I want to say that there is a strong chance that this information is false. But bear with me.
The latest Trump controversy driven by media and social media, is that he met with the families of some of the deceased soldiers who were attacked in Niger, and according to Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, he told the family of one of the soldiers (Sgt. La David T. Johnson) the following.
'He knew what he was signing up for but I guess it hurts anyway.'
Of course many on the left are outraged, and of course, Trump is claiming it's not true. He tweeted this morning
'Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!'
Okay so here's my main point. If you have proof, then go ahead and release the tape or whatever proof you have. Use it as a fundraising tool to raise money for Sgt. Johnson's family (his 25 year old wife is 6 months pregnant with their 3rd child).
If you don't release this proof, then I will believe Wilson, and continue to not believe a word you say in any other tweet or press conference or rally.
If neither side produces proof, and its simply a his word against her word... why would you pick a side?
There are two main possibilities.
1) She is telling the truth.
a) If she had proof she probably would have released it to smear trump
b) If she did not have proof, she should realize this is a "she said vs he said" thing and people will believe whatever matches their personal biases.
c) Trump is lying to cover up that he was heartless towards soldiers families.
2) She is lying.
a) in this case she cannot have proof, since it didn't happen.
b) if Trump has proof i agree he should release it. But if he choses not to release it, it does not change the fact that she is lying
c) if Trump does not have proof then he's just blustering, like he does.
The problem is that we have no way to know the difference between 2b and 2c.
As well, if Trump choses not release the 'proof' he claims to have, we still have no way to know if 1 or 2 is true. She started this issue... so it's on her to prove what she's saying. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant.
You're basically defending the concept that if Person A claims X about Person B and Person B doesn't prove it false or then it must be true.
To make a more charged example... a woman claims rape and has no proof and the guy doesn't prove that he didn't rape her that you're going to side with the woman.
Or to make a more personal example... I claim that you eat babies. You can either a) prove that it's not true or b) everyone will believe that it is true because you 'chose' not to prove it.