Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[NoahFence]

This is a pretty dumb argument. Being misinterpreted has nothing to do with being a straight-shooter. Especially if it is willful misinterpretation. In any case, many of Trump's supporters don't care if he is a straight-shooter or not (I actually don't think he is). They just don't think it's disqualifying to say stupid things. Or at least not as disqualifying as actually doing stupid things while in government.

Saying stupid things IS doing stupid things when you're the President.

FYI.

 

[gregthehammer]

This is a pretty dumb argument. Being misinterpreted has nothing to do with being a straight-shooter. Especially if it is willful misinterpretation. In any case, many of Trump's supporters don't care if he is a straight-shooter or not (I actually don't think he is). They just don't think it's disqualifying to say stupid things. Or at least not as disqualifying as actually doing stupid things while in government.

Who's being willful in their interpretation/misinterpretation of what was said?
Why does it even need interpretation?
She said "So what? They're Muslim".
No additional interpretation needed.

 

[dudalb]

Are we waiting for the page to flip to get away from that Central Park 5 gaffe of Trump's today?

Just shows what kind of justice Americans who are not of White European descent can look forward to in an Trump administration.
After all, whether they are guilty of not is really irrevelant. We need to send them to prison to keep the ******* in line.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 10. If you must, you may use the form "n-word" but not a disguised form of the actual word.

 

[dudalb]

Just about everybody except Trump admits the Central Park 5 got a raw deal:Coerced Confessions,and less then brilliant legal representation.
(Going after the victim who never identified the accused as those who attacked her and was a neutral, not a Hostile witness was a dumb move.)

 

[pgwenthold]

It is shocking to me that this kind of attack on lawyers continues to be made by anyone. How does anyone make it through even a single episode of a modern TV show about lawyers without seeing that defense attorneys are absolutely necessary. After all, one of the most common tropes is setting up a defendant who looks guilty but turns out to be innocent, then the actual guilty person is found.

In other words, people don't even have to keep track of reality to learn the lesson that everyone should have competent, vigorous representation in court.

I read a discussion yesterday about the significance of the 6th amendment, and how it was among the least debated of the Bill of Rights. The importance of guaranteed representations of defendants was recognized long before the constitutional convention. Republicans, otoh, don't care. Strict constitutional constitutionalsts my ass

 

[xjx388]

I'm not sure I understand what is so egregious about Trump saying that he thinks the CP5 are guilty. Yes, no DNA matching them was found on the victim. There's no doubt that someone else deposited his semen. But does this exonerate them? Isn't there still be some question of whether or not they participated as they all confessed to? They have admitted to being part of a roving gang of kids who were assaulting people. They confessed to, at the very least, holding her down while others raped her. It is possible for them to have participated while not depositing DNA. I don't think their innocence is as forgone a conclusion as many here seem to think it is. I am willing to be corrected.

 

[pgwenthold]

Are we waiting for the page to flip to get away from that Central Park 5 gaffe of Trump's today?

How is a "gaffe?" A gaffe is saying something by mistake. This was no mistake.

Yeah, it was a stupid thing to say, but that just reflects the fact the he believes something stupid. It's not a mistake when you say what you believe.

 

[JPK]

Good afternoon xjx388

I'm not sure I understand what is so egregious about Trump saying that he thinks the CP5 are guilty. Yes, no DNA matching them was found on the victim. There's no doubt that someone else deposited his semen. But does this exonerate them? Isn't there still be some question of whether or not they participated as they all confessed to? They have admitted to being part of a roving gang of kids who were assaulting people. They confessed to, at the very least, holding her down while others raped her. It is possible for them to have participated while not depositing DNA. I don't think their innocence is as forgone a conclusion as many here seem to think it is. I am willing to be corrected.

I understand what you are saying. There is more than the absence of DNA that got them cleared. There was an actual confession from the actual perpetrator who's story matches the actual evidence they had.

 

[Agatha]

Thread continues here.

Posted By: Agatha