Thought Police tactics - for the case when evidence is lacking - for impeachment

[BobRyan]

Many have assumed that thought police "standards and practices" would include imagining what someone "might be thinking" in cases where actual evidence is lacking.

Motive and intent "alone" -- though it be "much imagined" -- is all that is required in that case.

Two lawyers discussing the idea that an innocent person and a guilty person will both speak as if they are doing nothing wrong on a phone call -- is all it takes to convict the person of one's preference in such a thought-police atmosphere.

But is the thought-police state really what we want??

 

[Elisha's Bear]

An Adventist starting political threads? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Where did you get this idea from? There is no such thing as a thought police. People are reading evidence that definitively proves what Donald Trump was thinking. He actually SAID what he was thinking and that thought was recorded, saved, and printed out.

 

[BobRyan]

Where did you get this idea from? There is no such thing as a thought police.

The more it is agreed among the American public that there should be "no such thing as thought police" the quicker this whole impeachment event is going to resolve itself.

 

[BobRyan]

An Adventist starting political threads? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Adventists have long been opposed to thought police principles being employed by the state such that people would be charged with crimes merely for having a different POV, or a thought that is not "approve" or a religious conviction that is "not approved by the state".

 

[GodLovesCats]

The more it is agreed among the American public that there should be "no such thing as thought police" the quicker this whole impeachment event is going to resolve itself.

Why do you continue to deny there is DOCUMENTED PROOF of what Trump did and his intentions? People are not imagining anything. They are looking at EVIDENCE of what happened.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Adventists have long been opposed to thought police principles being employed by the state such that people would be charged with crimes merely for having a different POV, or a thought that is not "approve" or a religious conviction that is "not approved by the state".

Nobody is being charged for thinking someting. Trump will be charged for what he did.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Adventists have long been opposed to thought police principles being employed by the state such that people would be charged with crimes merely for having a different POV, or a thought that is not "approve" or a religious conviction that is "not approved by the state".

Nice spin, but I'm pretty sure Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally been more interested in the preservation of religious liberty than the antics of the movers and shakers in Washington.