A psychological barrier that some people face when hearing criticisms of djt and MAGA elites generally is that there is no direct evidence of illegality or malicious intent. Consonant with how courts are usually portrayed to work, the prosecutor or accuser has the burden of proof and to show the accused is liable or guilty of the accusations. But courts do not always work that way [1].
I suspect that understanding is a big part of why some or maybe many people simply refuse to believe that many or all of the accusations against djt and MAGA elites are real or at least worthy of serious consideration. I can see the appeal in holding that belief. It simplifies politics quite a lot. And, for people who are disposed to support what djt and MAGA elites say and do, it prevents a ton of cognitive dissonance or unpleasant feelings.
But is it really irrationally biased or unreasonably subjective for Americans to distrust the rhetoric, motives and actions of djt and MAGA elites? After all, they're innocent until proven liable or guilty, right? Well, no, not right. Here, we are talking about the court of public opinion, not a court of law. And, for US citizens, I believe the people have a right and moral imperative to know the truth. People have every right to distrust liars, dictators, plutocrats, theocrats, kleptocrats and other untrustworthy people and groups in power.
I demand clear & convincing evidence I'm wrong
In my firm opinion and based on all the evidence in the public record, shifting the burden of proof onto djt and MAGA elites is both objective and rational. As a reality check, I asked Perp to think about it:
Q: In view of all evidence in the public record, is it objective or not to distrust what Trump and most MAGA elites say and do, or is shifting the burden of proof onto Trump and most MAGA elites unreasonably biased or irrational?A: Distrusting what Trump and most MAGA elites say and do can be seen as objective based on the evidence in the public record.
Objective Grounds for Distrust
Pattern of False or Misleading Statements: Donald Trump has been documented making thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency, averaging over 20 per day 2. This pattern of behavior erodes trust in his statements.
Legal Issues and Convictions: Trump has faced numerous legal challenges, including a conviction for falsifying business records, which involved hiding payments related to allegations of extramarital affairs 1 6. This conviction adds to concerns about his integrity.
Controversial Rhetoric and Policies: The MAGA movement is known for its divisive rhetoric and controversial policies, which have been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation 4 8. This environment fosters skepticism about the truthfulness of their claims.
Immunity and Legal Maneuvers: Trump's efforts to invoke immunity and his legal team's maneuvers to dismiss cases have raised questions about accountability and the rule of law 1 3.Shifting the Burden of Proof
Shifting the burden of proof onto Trump and MAGA elites is not inherently biased or irrational. In legal and public discourse, individuals or groups making claims are typically expected to provide evidence to support those claims. Given the historical context of misinformation and legal controversies surrounding Trump and the MAGA movement, it is reasonable to require them to demonstrate the truthfulness of their statements and actions.
However, it is crucial to maintain an open-minded approach and consider evidence objectively, rather than assuming guilt or falsehood without proof. This balance ensures that skepticism is based on evidence rather than prejudice.
In conclusion, while skepticism towards Trump and MAGA elites can be justified based on past behavior and public record, it is important to remain objective and consider new evidence as it arises.
Yes, it is important to remain objective and consider new evidence as it arises. What new evidence? The evidence that djt and MAGA elites could show to demonstrate their clean intentions and good will actions. djt and MAGA elites have a proven track record of chronic lies, outrageous slanders, crackpot conspiracy theories and irrational, unwarranted emotional manipulation.
In my opinion, it is mostly biased and/or subjective to not shift the burden of proof onto djt and MAGA elites, who are known by lots of reliable evidence to be untrustworthy. They damned well owe us an explanation backed up by lots of solid evidence.
Q: Are you a person who at least sometimes falls back on the innocent until proven guilty concept when members of the public make unproven allegations against politicians with a track record of untrustworthiness?
Footnote:
1. Perp discusses burden shifting in courts:
Q: Under what circumstances and in what kind of lawsuits or prosecutions does the burden of proof shift from the accuser to the accused?A: The burden of proof can shift from the accuser to the accused in various legal contexts, both in criminal and civil cases.
Criminal Cases
Affirmative Defenses: In criminal cases, the burden of proof generally rests on the prosecution. However, if the defendant raises an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, insanity, or alibi, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove these defenses. The defendant does not need to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt but must provide enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury or judge 1 6.
Mistaken Identity: If the defendant claims mistaken identity, they may need to provide evidence supporting this claim, though the primary burden remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 1.Civil Cases
Affirmative Defenses: In civil cases, if the defendant asserts an affirmative defense, such as assumption of risk or failure to mitigate damages, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove these defenses 2 7.
Negligence Per Se: If a plaintiff alleges negligence per se, the defendant may be considered guilty of committing a criminal act as part of the breach of duty. In such cases, the burden can shift to the defendant to prove they exercised reasonable care 2.
Employment Discrimination: Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to show a non-discriminatory reason for their actions. If the defendant provides such a reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the reason is pretextual 3 7.
Contract Disputes: While the plaintiff typically bears the burden of proving the existence of a contract and its breach, the defendant may need to prove any affirmative defenses they raise, such as fraud in the inducement or duress 4.Policy and Fairness: The allocation of the burden of proof is often a matter of policy and fairness, based on the specific circumstances of the case 5.
