US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Temujin said:
You're wasting your time. Heres a number for you... 39.
Thats the number of times I've asked that question in response to the various links and quotes... still waiting, just 'finger in ears' responses and crickets etc. No one is able to explain how they read 'hillary must go to jail with no due process' when quote says 'hillary must go to jail', or for example 'stop people at border from entering illegally' turns into 'immigrants must be deported without due process'. You'll get better response from your toe nail clippings

I've now resorted to just using the ignore button, people in this thread have their 'belief' and god forbid anyone ask a question that points out the bs in them and the 'articles'(which read as nothing more than opinion pieces) they post. Not worth the energy, its very clear their eyes are glued shut and they're full up on the kool-aid
Click to expand...

I answered every single question that was put to me. I cited multiple external sources in trying to answer the questions, which is more than I can say for you. If it wasn't satisfactory to the standard of evidence you were looking for, well, what else am I meant to do? But don't come on saying you're getting 'finger in the ear' responses, because that's completely dishonest. From 5589 to let's say 5747 I answered your questions, and Pitbull's and emjay's, ad nauseum.
 
cerebus said:
I answered every single question that was put to me. I cited multiple external sources in trying to answer the questions, which is more than I can say for you. If it wasn't satisfactory to the standard of evidence you were looking for, well, what else am I meant to do? But don't come on saying you're getting 'finger in the ear' responses, because that's completely dishonest. From 5589 to let's say 5747 I answered your questions, and Pitbull's and emjay's, ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did, and I agreed with that, as Cray explained it in 5592, 'due process second' is not due process. Again... we go into the same endless questions, which I'm tired of repeating.... the rest... no answers, crickets
 
Temujin said:
Yes, you did, and I agreed with that, as Cray explained it in 5592, 'due process second' is not due process. Again... we go into the same endless questions, which I'm tired of repeating.... the rest... no answers, crickets
Click to expand...

Okay let's look specifically at the case of the Central Park Five, who were cited in the original article that kicked off this whole debate.

First, Trump took out a full page ad in the NYT calling for the death penalty before there was a conviction. Then AFTER they were exonerated due to DNA evidence and settled with the city of New York for $41million, Trump not only wouldn't apologise, he actually doubled down on his statements.

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.
Click to expand...

How is that not a complete disregard for due process and the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

Thing is, your entire argument rests on the fact that language has ambiguity which gives a scope for deniability, especially the stream of consciousness ramblings of a person like Trump - and you're forcing everyone else to use precise definitions when his own speaking lacks all specificity. But nobody looking at the facts around, for instance, undocumented immigration, or lock her up chants, misunderstands what Trump means.
 
Last edited:
Cray said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/after-kavanaugh-destruction-who-is-safe/

Conservative victimhood in full swing....Where can I sign up for a "destruction" that ends with an appointment to the Supreme court? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

take it you've never been falsely accused of anything .... doesn't matter that he still ended up getting the job, the bullshyte charges, some of the worst at that, put him (and countless others) through hell. You think his wife and friends and family are all going to look at him the same, because they don't, even with innocence.
 
Mephisto_Helix said:
take it you've never been falsely accused of anything .... doesn't matter that he still ended up getting the job, the bullshyte charges, some of the worst at that, put him (and countless others) through hell. You think his wife and friends and family are all going to look at him the same, because they don't, even with innocence.
Click to expand...
A lack of evidence doesn't mean he was innocent of what he was accused of...
 
Cray said:
A lack of evidence doesn't mean he was innocent of what he was accused of...
Click to expand...

Didn't say as much ....... but neither does it make him guilty. Unfortunately lack of evidence is key, one cannot assume guilt or innocence 100%, despite what any side was baying for.
 
I believe that one side was "baying" for an investigation, to try to establish facts.

The other was trying to railroad the appointment without an investigation, and when their hand was forced, ensured that the investigation was kept far from any potential facts.
 
Cray said:
Calling the charges "bullshyte" puts you very firmly in one camp.... You say we cannot know either way but still call it "bullshyte"...?
Click to expand...

I call it bullshyte because of the dirty timing of the whole saga .... US politics is dirty AF and this kind of thing just keeps that perception. There wouldn't be as much rolling of eyes even from the conservitards if this came out at any other point in Kav's time, every sane person should see that, no matter your leaning.
 
cerebus said:
First, Trump took out a full page ad in the NYT calling for the death penalty before there was a conviction. Then AFTER they were exonerated due to DNA evidence and settled with the city of New York for $41million, Trump not only wouldn't apologise, he actually doubled down on his statements.
Click to expand...

How is that not a complete disregard for due process and the principle of innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...
It is a tad different...
1) We know a crime actually happened in the first place. This wasn't a cold case 36 years ago.
2) At the time, the confessions of the people involved were:
Four of the five confessed to a number of the attacks committed in the park that night, and implicated one or more of the others.[10][39] None of the five said they themselves actually raped the jogger, but each confessed to being an accomplice to the rape.[10] All five said that they themselves had only helped restrain the jogger, or touched her, while one or more others raped her.[39] Antron McCray said that a "Puerto Rican kid with a hoodie" had been the one who raped the jogger.[10] While he was incarcerated in the Rikers Island jail, Korey Wise told the older sister of a friend of his, according to her testimony, that he had only held the jogger down.[39]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case#Confessions

That was a video taped confession btw.

The guy who they eventually found, Matias Reyes was, coincidentally, a Puerto Rican immigrant.

There was a lot of smoke there IMO.
 
HBee said:
The lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

Lack of physical evidence of an event that happened 36 years ago is equal to innocence?

https://www.campussafetymagazine.co...ove-sexual-assault-without-physical-evidence/

A thorough investigation that wasn't hamstrung by the White House would have been able to either exonerate Kavanaugh fully - in which case nobody could ever say his career was 'destroyed' - or possibly established a likelihood of guilt.

- Deborah Ramirez provided a list of 20 witnesses who were never interviewed, some of whom are already on record as saying that they heard about the same incident, with the same details.
- Ford provided a list of possible witnesses who were never contacted.
- Many classmates spoke out to contradict Kavanaugh's sworn testimony of his drinking behavior.
- Julie Swetnick was seemingly totally ignored in the investigation, despite having the most serious claims of any of the three women.
 
Aquila ka Hecate said:
I still can't quite get my head around the fact that anyone believes a word that comes out of Trump's mouth.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't think they believe him. They just don't care because he's doing what they want. But they'll expend infinite time and energy to gaslight you and try to make you think that he didn't say exactly what you just heard him saying.
 
cerebus said:
Eh, I don't think they believe him. They just don't care because he's doing what they want. But they'll expend infinite time and energy to gaslight you and try to make you think that he didn't say exactly what you just heard him saying.
Click to expand...

Well, then, they are farking loons who haven't got a clue about being a half-way decent human being.
 
Cray said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/after-kavanaugh-destruction-who-is-safe/

Conservative victimhood in full swing....Where can I sign up for a "destruction" that ends with an appointment to the Supreme court? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You want to talk about victim hood?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/lisa-murkowski-susan-collins-kavanaugh.html

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. Since 1952, white women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X