Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
120 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: So Donald Trump is the devil? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Not_"literally" [+] spiritual_nature_of_evil [+] [View All]
Kaitlyn Smith
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was originally going to post this in "Trump Haikus" but it has been pointed out that I shouldn't say negative things about Hillary in a thread meant to mock Trump, and I've taken the hint. So I started a new thread.

Kumitedad wrote:
Orange Lucifer
His fans have one last defence
but but.....Hillary!


First, I am no fan of Donald Trump. He's a despicable disgusting entitled jerk. Make no mistake that there were 16 other people in the Republican primary that I'd rather see running against Hillary. Throw in Pence, Gingrich, Bachmann, Herman Cain and I could get up to 20 easily. If I thought awhile, I could probably get up to 50, maybe 100.

Some of them would have no chance to beat Hillary, but at least my party would have put up a decent human being.

But make no mistake here, we are voting for the person who is going to lead the most powerful country in the world for the next four, maybe eight years. And while I could make the case that she is even more despicable than he is (and I plan to), the most relevant thing is which of them comes with policies that are going to make the country a better place? Personally, I think the country is going in the wrong direction and the powerful people are keeping the power and the wealth and the average Joe is getting s*** on. With Hillary, it will be more of the same. She believes that Wall Street should determine the financial fate of our country. Thanks to Wikileaks for showing the true Hillary, otherwise she could lie to the American people and get away with it.

I strongly believe that Hillary will attempt to enact legislature or appoint judges that will make it much more difficult to combat big government in the future; to make it nearly impossible to change the culture of disincentive to work because taxes and regulations will harass the innovators and small business owners, while advocating and putting in place permanently the Robin Hood philosophies of taking from those who produce to give to those that don't.

While I'm not convinced that Donald won't do the same thing, he at least offers some hope that the country will not continue to go on the same path that it's on now. Will he make some terrible decisions? Probably. But I see the future of the country under Hillary and it is very bleak; it's quite possible that the country can recover from Donald's mistakes, because other than favoring a litigious society (which could do the country serious damage), I don't see him continuing down the path of the decline of the American empire.

You have compared Trump to the devil. I actually believe that Hillary is closer to the devil than Donald. If you released the 100 worst things that Donald has said and the 100 worst things that Hillary has said, Hillary would win for an unusual reason - many current Trump voters have morals and would not vote because they think neither is fit for office, but many Hillary voters don't give a damn about morals or wouldn't even listen to any bad press about Hillary because their minds are made up (if they even have any minds.) I'm not talking about the RSP folks, you all seem to be able to think things through - I'm talking about many college kids that don't know a damn thing about politics or the way things work in America and would vote for Hillary because a professor told them that only an idiot would vote for Trump, and they're too busy drinking beer at the frat house to do any research on their own.

However, if everyone was forced to listen to the 100 worst things that each of them said, and listen well enough to pass a written test on the subject, I believe she would get slaughtered in the election for people would know who she was. Hillary supporters, you have nothing to worry about. Hillary has friends in powerful places and you can be sure that she can come out with a new Donald atrocity every day from now until the election, but her secrets will stay hidden forever. And even if her secrets come out, most Hillary voters will not hear of them, for one thing, the mainstream media will only print or show bad things about Trump (for the most part, there are a few exceptions), and for another thing, most Hillary voters probably don't pay any attention to what's going on.

But make no mistake, Hillary is not a good person, not even close. She attacked a 12-year old rape victim, saying the rape is the young girl's fault, even though she thought the rapist was guilty. She has attempted to ruin the lives of women who Slick Willy has raped or groped in order to advance his (and ultimately her) political career. She lied to the parents of Benghazi victims. She is an Alinsky disciple, following his evil means to achieve an evil end. She wants the progressive elite to have the power and the wealth forever and wants to put in place government controls to make sure that can't be reversed. There are probably many other evil things she's done, but most of them won't see the light of day due to the media. If not for Wikileaks, we wouldn't know her true thoughts about who should run finances in this country.

I am not saying that Trump is a saint. Far from it. I am only saying that those of you who say that Trump shouldn't run the country based on his character but are voting for Hillary are hypocrites. If you vote for Hillary because you like the current path the country is taking, that's fine. But if you're voting for Hillary because you think Trump is despicable, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, and should seriously consider Johnson or Stein or a write-in.
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
I'll concur that somebody NOT either of them is preferable, since we're "RE:tired" for their "same old tired shit" that doesn't achieve beyond "perpetuating & perpetrating" THUS!
GET the "S.O.T.S.-OUT!
2 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C Bazler
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
"Come, and trip it as you go..."
badge
"...on the light fantastic toe."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
I am not saying that Trump is a saint. Far from it. I am only saying that those of you who say that Trump shouldn't run the country based on his character but are voting for Hillary are hypocrites. If you vote for Hillary because you like the current path the country is taking, that's fine. But if you're voting for Hillary because you think Trump is despicable, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, and should seriously consider Johnson or Stein or a write-in.


What if we say Trump shouldn't run the country because he has no experience governing, has a very poor understanding of our law and government, has repeatedly demonstrated a flagrant disrespect for the Constitution, and knows nothing about foreign policy or international affairs? Is that okay?

45 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I will only address 1 point because it needs saying she did not attack a 12 year old rape victim she defended a man accused of raping a 12 year old victim. The difference is rather important.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kaitlyn Smith
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
I will only address 1 point because it needs saying she did not attack a 12 year old rape victim she defended a man accused of raping a 12 year old victim. The difference is rather important.
The way I heard it was some of her defense was implying that it was at least somewhat the victim's fault.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That sounded terrible so I looked into it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

Quote:
In her book “Living History,” Clinton recalls that Mahlon Gibson, a Washington County prosecutor, told her that the accused rapist “wanted a woman lawyer” to defend him, and that Gibson had recommended Clinton to Judge Maupin Cummings. “I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.”

Gibson corroborated Clinton’s story in a 2014 interview with CNN.

Quote:
CNN, June 25, 2014: Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don’t jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn’t remove her and she stayed on the case.”


In a separate 2014 interview, Clinton said she had an “obligation” to represent Taylor. “I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” she said.


This is why I usually don't bother to fact check shocking revelations any more after 25 years of this crap.

Clinton was a lawyer- she did her duty as required by the judge- but also in the spirit of our legal system. It sucks but even bad guys get legal council and an assumption of innocence in the american justic system.

Sheesh. I am so tired of this shit. I'll be glad when this election is over.

I suggest you spend a little time and research your allegations above to make sure the rest are not similarly tainted by right wing spin.
55 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harmonica
Netherlands
Tilburg
Noord-Brabant
flag msg tools
badge
Keep your lovin' brother happy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Suppose mr. Donald Trump is your boss at work. Do you think that is something you want? If the answer is no and you intend to vote for him, you seriously have to ask yourselves, why it is acceptable that he is going to be your president!

Since Bush sr. the GOP has done nothing else than to play hard ball. They polarize and play dirty. The past eight years they have done nothing else, then to prevent Obama from achieving anything. It's then no wonder, that a personality like Trump shows up in such a political climate. I see it as a sign, that the GOPs attitude is backfiring on them.

If the GOP is the party of decency, then a lot of work needs to be done. Otherwise let the Democrats rule with a majority in both houses. There is serious work to be done at international level. That can easily been done without Republicans!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kaitlyn Smith
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cbazler wrote:
What if we say Trump shouldn't run the country because he has no experience governing, has a very poor understanding of our law and government, has repeatedly demonstrated a flagrant disrespect for the Constitution, and knows nothing about foreign policy or international affairs? Is that okay?

Of course, that's okay, but that doesn't seem to be what a lot of people are saying. And I have factored that into my decision. Would I rather see the country go down its current path, possibly irreversibly, or would I rather have a leader that doesn't know anything who Congress isn't going to take that seriously?

Also, I'm not sure that you can bring up "flagrant disrespect for the Constitution" as a difference - I believe Hillary is one of those who thinks the Constitution is a "living breathing document" and will appoint Supreme Court justices who rule in such a way as to say that the Constitution means what progressives want it to mean. And those judges are going to be there a long time. Just look at how often the two Clinton and two Obama justices all go the same way, clearly the actual content of the Constitution is being ignored in favor of political alignment. (One could argue the other four appointees do the same thing.) Hillary is going to continue down the same path that Slick Willy started, and when the Constitution gets interpreted politically, isn't that a flagrant disrespect?

So if they are both going to flagrantly disrespect the Constitution, shouldn't we vote for the person that is going to disrespect the Constitution in favor of our own ideals? I guess for you that would be Clinton and for me that would be Trump.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C Bazler
United States
Bronx
New York
flag msg tools
"Come, and trip it as you go..."
badge
"...on the light fantastic toe."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
cbazler wrote:
What if we say Trump shouldn't run the country because he has no experience governing, has a very poor understanding of our law and government, has repeatedly demonstrated a flagrant disrespect for the Constitution, and knows nothing about foreign policy or international affairs? Is that okay?

Of course, that's okay, but that doesn't seem to be what a lot of people are saying. And I have factored that into my decision. Would I rather see the country go down its current path, possibly irreversibly, or would I rather have a leader that doesn't know anything who Congress isn't going to take that seriously?

Also, I'm not sure that you can bring up "flagrant disrespect for the Constitution" as a difference - I believe Hillary is one of those who thinks the Constitution is a "living breathing document" and will appoint Supreme Court justices who rule in such a way as to say that the Constitution means what progressives want it to mean. And those judges are going to be there a long time. Just look at how often the two Clinton and two Obama justices all go the same way, clearly the actual content of the Constitution is being ignored in favor of political alignment. (One could argue the other four appointees do the same thing.) Hillary is going to continue down the same path that Slick Willy started, and when the Constitution gets interpreted politically, isn't that a flagrant disrespect?

So if they are both going to flagrantly disrespect the Constitution, shouldn't we vote for the person that is going to disrespect the Constitution in favor of our own ideals? I guess for you that would be Clinton and for me that would be Trump.


I'm not talking about Supreme Court justices. I am talking about Trump's actual policy decisions and campaign promises that would be illegal and would violate the Constitution. He has said we could try American citizens at Guantanamo. He proposes we write laws that systematically discriminate against people with one particular religious affiliation. He wants to institute a federal death penalty for cop killers (a state issue). He wants to revoke birth citizenship for Latin Americans!!! These are staples of our Constitution.

Get your head out of your butt. The guy is a total nightmare.
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
maxo-texas wrote:
That sounded terrible so I looked into it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

Quote:
In her book “Living History,” Clinton recalls that Mahlon Gibson, a Washington County prosecutor, told her that the accused rapist “wanted a woman lawyer” to defend him, and that Gibson had recommended Clinton to Judge Maupin Cummings. “I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.”

Gibson corroborated Clinton’s story in a 2014 interview with CNN.

Quote:
CNN, June 25, 2014: Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don’t jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn’t remove her and she stayed on the case.”


In a separate 2014 interview, Clinton said she had an “obligation” to represent Taylor. “I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” she said.


This is why I usually don't bother to fact check shocking revelations any more after 25 years of this crap.

Clinton was a lawyer- she did her duty as required by the judge- but also in the spirit of our legal system. It sucks but even bad guys get legal council and an assumption of innocence in the american justic system.

Sheesh. I am so tired of this shit. I'll be glad when this election is over.

I suggest you spend a little time and research your allegations above to make sure the rest are not similarly tainted by right wing spin.


I love it when CONSERVATIVES show how much disrespect they have for the Sixth Amendment and the right to Counsel.

John Adams defended the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre, and said it was the thing he was most proud of in life. Now, you see Trumpfans digging on Kaine and Clinton for doing their duty as lawyers to ensure that all get proper counsel.

I mean, what the fuck, people? When did the idea that even sex offenders deserve the right to counsel become a controversial, nay, a "LIBERAL", 'not CONSERVATIVE' position?? What has happened here???

Darilian
50 
 Thumb up
0.57
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
Clinton was a lawyer- she did her duty as required by the judge- but also in the spirit of our legal system. It sucks but even bad guys get legal council and an assumption of innocence in the american justic system.

Damn that pesky Constitution!
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
I will only address 1 point because it needs saying she did not attack a 12 year old rape victim she defended a man accused of raping a 12 year old victim. The difference is rather important.
The way I heard it was some of her defense was implying that it was at least somewhat the victim's fault.


Yes. And. So. What?

Defense lawyers are to use whatever tactics that they can use to raise the bar against the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove the defendant did the crime- its the defendant's job to make the prosecutions job as hard as possible by whatever legal means are available.

Again, this line of attack shows absolute contempt for the Sixth Amendment; that if someone is accused of having done terrible things, they have no right to the protections of the Constitution. Our system doesn't work like that.

This idea that even the most contemptible of criminal deserve a fair trial is not new, and its hardly been controversial until now. So what the fuck? I see this all the time seeping in from the dark corners of the right. I thought it was only LIBERALS who ignored the Constitution in order to achieve things that satisfy the longings of hungry mobs?

It's beyond inconsistent or hypocritical; it shows how far away that the 'Deep Right' has pulled the 'conservative' conversation to the point that they're increasingly comfortable with very anti-Constitutional means to achieve ideological ends.

Darilian
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kaitlyn Smith
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
I mean, what the fuck, people? When did the idea that even sex offenders deserve the right to counsel become a controversial, nay, a "LIBERAL", 'not CONSERVATIVE' position?? What has happened here???

Darilian
I can't disagree with you.

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I defended a rapist I thought was guilty by attacking the character of a child victim. But I suppose that lawyers are honor-bound to do just that which is why I would never want to be a lawyer.

Mind you, the fact that she wrote in a book that she wanted to be excused from the case means absolutely nothing to me since I don't trust her. However, the judge backing up her story is fairly meaningful. While I still think what she did to the victims of Bill's sexual assaults is despicable, I guess I'll have to stop using that rape trial as evidence of her evilness.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
Clinton was a lawyer- she did her duty as required by the judge- but also in the spirit of our legal system. It sucks but even bad guys get legal council and an assumption of innocence in the american justic system.

Damn that pesky Constitution!


Any party that can't respect the constitution for a quarter of a president's term shouldn't be allowed in government.

The republicans are terrible at following the constitution for being such constitutional literalists.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
Darilian wrote:
I mean, what the fuck, people? When did the idea that even sex offenders deserve the right to counsel become a controversial, nay, a "LIBERAL", 'not CONSERVATIVE' position?? What has happened here???

Darilian
I can't disagree with you.

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I defended a rapist I thought was guilty by attacking the character of a child victim. But I suppose that lawyers are honor-bound to do just that which is why I would never want to be a lawyer.

Mind you, the fact that she wrote in a book that she wanted to be excused from the case means absolutely nothing to me since I don't trust her. However, the judge backing up her story is fairly meaningful. While I still think what she did to the victims of Bill's sexual assaults is despicable, I guess I'll have to stop using that rape trial as evidence of her evilness.


I give a "human being" exception to her on anyone who had sex with bill.

While Clinton may support women generally (she's done a lot of tireless work in that area), anyone having sex with your husband is going to be the worst slut on the planet.

However, I respect that others will have different opinions on that issue. So that's just my personal opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Madison
Wisconsin
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Poor Kaitlyn, it must be hard to locate all the pieces of her gourd following the implosion of the OrangeMan.

Graspin@PussPuss2016
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Madison
Wisconsin
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
I was originally going to post this in "Trump Haikus" but it has been pointed out that I shouldn't say negative things about Hillary in a thread meant to mock Trump, and I've taken the hint. So I started a new thread.

Kumitedad wrote:
Orange Lucifer
His fans have one last defence
but but.....Hillary!


First, I am no fan of Donald Trump. He's a despicable disgusting entitled jerk. Make no mistake that there were 16 other people in the Republican primary that I'd rather see running against Hillary. Throw in Pence, Gingrich, Bachmann, Herman Cain and I could get up to 20 easily. If I thought awhile, I could probably get up to 50, maybe 100.

Some of them would have no chance to beat Hillary, but at least my party would have put up a decent human being.

But make no mistake here, we are voting for the person who is going to lead the most powerful country in the world for the next four, maybe eight years. And while I could make the case that she is even more despicable than he is (and I plan to), the most relevant thing is which of them comes with policies that are going to make the country a better place? Personally, I think the country is going in the wrong direction and the powerful people are keeping the power and the wealth and the average Joe is getting s*** on. With Hillary, it will be more of the same. She believes that Wall Street should determine the financial fate of our country. Thanks to Wikileaks for showing the true Hillary, otherwise she could lie to the American people and get away with it.

I strongly believe that Hillary will attempt to enact legislature or appoint judges that will make it much more difficult to combat big government in the future; to make it nearly impossible to change the culture of disincentive to work because taxes and regulations will harass the innovators and small business owners, while advocating and putting in place permanently the Robin Hood philosophies of taking from those who produce to give to those that don't.

While I'm not convinced that Donald won't do the same thing, he at least offers some hope that the country will not continue to go on the same path that it's on now. Will he make some terrible decisions? Probably. But I see the future of the country under Hillary and it is very bleak; it's quite possible that the country can recover from Donald's mistakes, because other than favoring a litigious society (which could do the country serious damage), I don't see him continuing down the path of the decline of the American empire.

You have compared Trump to the devil. I actually believe that Hillary is closer to the devil than Donald. If you released the 100 worst things that Donald has said and the 100 worst things that Hillary has said, Hillary would win for an unusual reason - many current Trump voters have morals and would not vote because they think neither is fit for office, but many Hillary voters don't give a damn about morals or wouldn't even listen to any bad press about Hillary because their minds are made up (if they even have any minds.) I'm not talking about the RSP folks, you all seem to be able to think things through - I'm talking about many college kids that don't know a damn thing about politics or the way things work in America and would vote for Hillary because a professor told them that only an idiot would vote for Trump, and they're too busy drinking beer at the frat house to do any research on their own.

However, if everyone was forced to listen to the 100 worst things that each of them said, and listen well enough to pass a written test on the subject, I believe she would get slaughtered in the election for people would know who she was. Hillary supporters, you have nothing to worry about. Hillary has friends in powerful places and you can be sure that she can come out with a new Donald atrocity every day from now until the election, but her secrets will stay hidden forever. And even if her secrets come out, most Hillary voters will not hear of them, for one thing, the mainstream media will only print or show bad things about Trump (for the most part, there are a few exceptions), and for another thing, most Hillary voters probably don't pay any attention to what's going on.

But make no mistake, Hillary is not a good person, not even close. She attacked a 12-year old rape victim, saying the rape is the young girl's fault, even though she thought the rapist was guilty. She has attempted to ruin the lives of women who Slick Willy has raped or groped in order to advance his (and ultimately her) political career. She lied to the parents of Benghazi victims. She is an Alinsky disciple, following his evil means to achieve an evil end. She wants the progressive elite to have the power and the wealth forever and wants to put in place government controls to make sure that can't be reversed. There are probably many other evil things she's done, but most of them won't see the light of day due to the media. If not for Wikileaks, we wouldn't know her true thoughts about who should run finances in this country.

I am not saying that Trump is a saint. Far from it. I am only saying that those of you who say that Trump shouldn't run the country based on his character but are voting for Hillary are hypocrites. If you vote for Hillary because you like the current path the country is taking, that's fine. But if you're voting for Hillary because you think Trump is despicable, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, and should seriously consider Johnson or Stein or a write-in.


I'm voting for Hillary, because she is the best candidate. As a bonus, Trump won't ever be President.

Is that goooodnuf for ya'll?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:
Darilian wrote:
I mean, what the fuck, people? When did the idea that even sex offenders deserve the right to counsel become a controversial, nay, a "LIBERAL", 'not CONSERVATIVE' position?? What has happened here???

Darilian
I can't disagree with you.

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I defended a rapist I thought was guilty by attacking the character of a child victim. But I suppose that lawyers are honor-bound to do just that which is why I would never want to be a lawyer.

Mind you, the fact that she wrote in a book that she wanted to be excused from the case means absolutely nothing to me since I don't trust her. However, the judge backing up her story is fairly meaningful. While I still think what she did to the victims of Bill's sexual assaults is despicable, I guess I'll have to stop using that rape trial as evidence of her evilness.


One wonders how many items on your list of "evilness" have the same level of reliability ie none. So basically proving the underlying truth of my haiku

And if we want to talk about evil, howse about The Donald and the Central Park 5

"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump still believes the “Central Park Five,” a group of black and Hispanic men who were convicted but later exonerated in the 1989 rape of a female jogger in New York City’s Central Park, are guilty, he told CNN this week. The news comes more than a decade after the men were cleared by DNA evidence and a confession by the actual culprit about his role in the crime."

"Trump’s statement underscores a fundamental disregard for the criminal justice system. While the five individuals accused in the case did at one point confess to crimes related to the rape of then-28-year-old Trisha Meili ― though never actually admitting to rape ― they all later retracted their statements to police. The suspects, then juveniles, claimed that during hours-long interrogations, police lied, intimidated and ultimately coerced them into falsely confessing to crimes they never committed."


POLITICS
Donald Trump Still Thinks The Central Park Five Are Guilty (They Aren’t)
Here we go again.
10/07/2016 03:24 pm ET | Updated 21 hours ago
9.3k

Matt Ferner National Reporter, The Huffington Post
PAUL J. RICHARDS via Getty Images

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump still believes the “Central Park Five,” a group of black and Hispanic men who were convicted but later exonerated in the 1989 rape of a female jogger in New York City’s Central Park, are guilty, he told CNN this week. The news comes more than a decade after the men were cleared by DNA evidence and a confession by the actual culprit about his role in the crime.

“They admitted they were guilty,” Trump told CNN’s Miguel Marquez. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.”

"Trump’s statement underscores a fundamental disregard for the criminal justice system. While the five individuals accused in the case did at one point confess to crimes related to the rape of then-28-year-old Trisha Meili ― though never actually admitting to rape ― they all later retracted their statements to police. The suspects, then juveniles, claimed that during hours-long interrogations, police lied, intimidated and ultimately coerced them into falsely confessing to crimes they never committed."

"But then in 2002, another man, Matias Reyes, a convicted rapist and murderer, confessed to the rape, saying he acted alone. His DNA was later found to have matched forensic evidence found on Meili.

"After serving a combined 41 years in prison, the five men were finally exonerated. And about 12 years later, New York City paid them a roughly $40 million settlement over the wrongful conviction."

"The evidence clearly indicates that the Central Park Five weren’t guilty of this crime. They never were."

"It’s not clear why Trump would decide to delve back into this painful episode, especially considering he played a distinct role in contributing to the case’s racial undertones and apparent clamor for mob justice at the time."


Want to know real evil. Try a man who would keep 5 innocent men in jail for a crime they didn't commit because of his warped view of "justice"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-central-par...

So considering this, and the alt right lie you provided to "prove" your case against Clinton you may wish to back off your accusations of "hypocrisy" regarding others view their respective characters


10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaitlyn_Res wrote:



Personally, I think the country is going in the wrong direction and the powerful people are keeping the power and the wealth and the average Joe is getting s*** on. With Hillary, it will be more of the same. She believes that Wall Street should determine the financial fate of our country. Thanks to Wikileaks for showing the true Hillary, otherwise she could lie to the American people and get away with it.

I strongly believe that Hillary will attempt to enact legislature or appoint judges that will make it much more difficult to combat big government in the future; to make it nearly impossible to change the culture of disincentive to work because taxes and regulations will harass the innovators and small business owners, while advocating and putting in place permanently the Robin Hood philosophies of taking from those who produce to give to those that don't.

While I'm not convinced that Donald won't do the same thing, he at least offers some hope that the country will not continue to go on the same path that it's on now. Will he make some terrible decisions? Probably. But I see the future of the country under Hillary and it is very bleak; it's quite possible that the country can recover from Donald's mistakes, because other than favoring a litigious society (which could do the country serious damage), I don't see him continuing down the path of the decline of the American empire.


many Hillary voters don't give a damn about morals or wouldn't even listen to any bad press about Hillary because their minds are made up (if they even have any minds.)



You think the country is going in the wrong direction. We've heard that from many supporters of Sanders and Trump and, of course the GOP in general. It's the standard argument against an incumbent party.

What we lack is a well thought out articulation of what is wrong in the direction and how to change it. What do you think is wrong? What has Trump offered that shows he understands how it went wrong and how to fix the problem?

You refer to the average Joe and to Wall Street interests as being mutually exclusive. This is exactly the kind of classist rhetoric that democrats have been accused of using for years. Sometimes it's true and sometimes it's not.

You articulate a somewhat paranoid position that Clinton will appoint justices that will make it more difficult to combat big government. Judges are the third branch. Federal judges, in particular are shield in large measure from political pressure as they don't stand for reelection. It leaves them free to contemplate the constitution, it's impact on our society and the philosophies of it's legs underpinnings. Some of the most "liberal" judges were appointed by conservative presidents (Earl Warren/Richard Nixon). Some conservative justices have yielded decisions based on their principles which were contrary to expected outcomes (Chief Justice Roberts and the ACA). The point is, historically, the Supreme Court is far less concerned than partisan politics than you imagine.

You say that Trump is despicable but, so is Clinton. Assuming that character is off the table, what remains is competence to address the issues. Trump has yet to voice any thoughts that show he understands geopolitics or economics to any appreciable degree. He has dwelled in the rhetoric of opposition but doesn't give us a a credible plan of action.

So I ask you, what are the three main problems with the countries direction and what actual solutions do you believe Trump has proposed?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kaitlyn Smith
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cbazler wrote:
I'm not talking about Supreme Court justices. I am talking about Trump's actual policy decisions and campaign promises that would be illegal and would violate the Constitution. He has said we could try American citizens at Guantanamo. He proposes we write laws that systematically discriminate against people with one particular religious affiliation. He wants to institute a federal death penalty for cop killers (a state issue). He wants to revoke birth citizenship for Latin Americans!!! These are staples of our Constitution.

Get your head out of your butt. The guy is a total nightmare.
I can't disagree that Trump is a nightmare. My current take is that we can survive the Trump nightmare, but the country will have much more difficulty surviving a Hillary nightmare which is just more of the same, put solidly into place so that people that care about the ethics that made our country great can't later reverse it.

The nice thing about the Trump atrocities is that they likely won't come to pass. For Congress and the Supreme Court (even with a couple of his appointees) will not let him get away with clearly illegal things (if they do, you can thank Obama for setting precedent with his Congress-bypassing executive orders and his lawmaking by agencies, but I really don't see Trump getting away with any of the above.) So he proposes laws that discriminate against a religion. Who is going to pass them? And what court is going to let them stand, if by some miracle he got the votes to pass it?

And isn't the federal government already sticking its head into state issues? Originally, the Constitution gave the federal government the powers it needed to protect the states from foreign attackers. IMO the federal government has grown way out of proportion to the original intent, and Trump is going in the wrong direction by making cop killing a federal issue. On the last issue, there are many Americans that don't feel that illegal immigrants should be able to set foot on our soil for one day and give birth to an American citizen - perhaps enough Americans that an Amendment may someday not make that part of the Constitution. I personally feel it is immoral to split up a family because of such a stupid law, and common sense tells me that a child born here of two non-citizens that aren't going through legal channels to become citizens should not be a citizen. And while the Constitution says otherwise, most of us have morals that make us believe that families should stay together, which leads to the unfortunate consequence is that the easiest and most surefire way to live in America is to sneak in and have a child here, and now your other 12 kids and two Grandmas are all America's responsibility - even if some of that family is criminals in a way other than entering the country illegally.

This is an interesting dilemma. Being conservative, I support a strong work ethic and strong family values and TBH the breadwinner in many of these illegal families has a far better work ethic than many entitled Americans, and their family values may be better too. Certainly the ones that keep sending money back to Mexico care a lot about their families, a hell of a lot more than certain subcultures in our country. But it goes against the grain to reward someone who doesn't play by the rules, and sneaking into the USA to have a baby so the whole family can join in just has a sleazy feel to it, especially as those that are coming here legally have to jump through so many hoops to make it happen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
After years of Democrats slandering the religious right for having moral standards, it's fun watching them morph into legalistic church ladies.

after years of the religious right claiming they have moral standards, it's sad to see those standards don't actually exist
33 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
After years of Democrats slandering the religious right for having moral standards, it's fun watching them morph into legalistic church ladies.


Must be a run on pearls for clutching. Hobby Lobby should have a whole aisle dedicated to them.

Betcha this won't affect his polling numbers, though.

This ain't over. In fact, it's gonna make some nice drama rama for the debates. The lamestream media is trying to avoid the stuff that just came out heaping more slime on Hildebeast.

If I were Trump, I'd be ready with a calm recitation of chapter and verse.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
After years of Democrats slandering the religious right for having moral standards, it's fun watching them morph into legalistic church ladies.

after years of the religious right claiming they have moral standards, it's sad to see those standards don't actually exist


It is our duty to vote for someone. So given that both candidates are moral slime, must use otehr priorities.

But given you have zero understanding of that world, this would not compute to you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
tstone wrote:


If I were Trump, I'd be ready with a calm recitation of chapter and verse.


I'd love to see that.

"Then LO!, the LORD did say to his prophet-
For if YOU are wealthy, and ownest thou several flocks of sheep
and if you posseth many jars of annoiting oil
and if the songs of the people call praise to your name wherever you art;
then YES, you shall go to any woman, no matter if she hath lain with her husband
and GRAB THEM BY THE PUSSY."

Amen.

Darilian

26 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
It is our duty to vote for someone. So given that both candidates are moral slime, must use otehr priorities.

Trump was also supported by the Evangelicals in the primary where there were quite a few other choices...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.