re: John Kasich's GOP in Ohio rejects him! LMAO!

As long as it brings the melts again...I'm down.

They should man up and switch parties to dems.
That’s what they are.

The worst of all politicians.

They can’t even admit that they are what they pretend to be against.

Kasich is a huge phony. He actually said just 1-2 months ago that he could no longer try to be supportive of President Trump. What a crock of crap. Kasich has NEVER supported Trump; he didn't go to the convention or even appear with Trump at rallies in Ohio.

In fact, it was John Kasich who was scheduled to speak in Washington just 2 days after the 2016 election, but he canceled the speech. Why? Because Donald Trump won, and Kasich's speech was going to be all about trashing Trump and talking about "taking back" the GOP from the people Hillary had called a basket of deplorables.

Kasich is a HUGE PHONY. I guess it's only fitting that his biggest 1-2 supporters on this forum are huge phonies, too.

quote:

---

This entire discussion pre-supposes that the prosecutor chooses to pursue charges

---

Either you are unfamiliar with agenda driven prosecutors, or you are being disingenuous. My guess is it's the latter.

quote:

---

A homeowner is hit in the head, concussed, and has no memory in an otherwise unwitnessed home invasion in which the intruder is killed. (As it turns out, in the intruder missed a strike at a second blow and as his body twisted, the homeowner shot the shot him in the back.) By your moronic standard, the amnestic homeowner could not prove a thing. So he'd be guilty by default . . . victimized twice.

---

This case would never be brought to trial. And the evidence of a concussion would easily be enough for reasonable doubt even if it were.

Btw it’s not my standard. It’s the well established standard everywhere in any court.

quote:

---

It is nice to watch Kasich get overridden though

---

All day - every day

As to the 'prove it' = I would not object to being required to define my mental state and the indications I interpreted to be a danger to me.

But to PROVE the guy would have killed me had I done nothing = does not compute.

No problem with defending my state of mind - perhaps I misread the intent of the OP

quote:

---

Kasich lacks any self awareness if he thinks he will have any sort of mass support if he runs for President in 2020. 

---

This is true, but I believe that even Kasich knows he can't get elected President. My one concern here is that the Establishment will fund a 3rd party presidential run consisting of a tandem of bought-and-paid-for GOPe types. Kasich/Ryan, for example. Flake could perhaps be on the ticket.

Could they win? Of course not. But the "mission" would not be winning. The goal would be to siphon off enough votes in close states to defeat Trump & give the Presidency back to the Establishment Democrat. Could that conceivably happen? All one has to do is look at the 20016 MOV in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin to know the answer.

I still think President Trump wins in 2020, but don't think for one second that we won't see some sort of 3rd Party RINO ticket on the ballot. Donald Trump's only crime was winning the Presidency as an OUTSIDER, and the Deep State will do every thing it can to stop him from winning reelection.

quote:

---

Kasich is a huge phony.

---

Back before anyone had announced their intentions to run for the GOP candidacy, I mused that Kasich would be a great candidate = remembered his work in the 90s on the budget, was governor of Ohio, an important state = was the extent of my vetting of him.

I then added Gov Walker from WI to my 'want' list.

Then came Cruz and I immediately became part of his entourage - and never wavered.

Kasich turned out to be a complete asshat - sorry I ever held a fond thought of him.

quote:

---

perhaps I misread the intent of the OP

---

The OP, like many of the threads started here, is framed in such a way to conform to the OP's bias.

The fact of the matter is Kasich vetoed a bill that passed self defense reforms you won't find in any state in this country. Even Texas requires you to prove self defense.

quote:

---

You’re unfamiliar with the law.

You’re arguing against one of the most established and basic legal principles in existence.

Besides, this entire discussion is about shifting the burden of proof at trial. Not where charges aren’t brought. The agenda of a prosecutor who filed charges in this context isn’t relevant to the burden shift itself, or the legal costs of a defendant at trial.

---

Suspicions confirmed . . . disingenuous.
You are a lawyer, I presume?