Donald Trump - not a fan of the 6th Amendment

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Trump says and does many stupid things. No need to make up shit, wait a day or two and he'll give you something to be rightfully upset about.
You can read other articles on the subject including my link. The thread is not inherently making anything up. Trump very clearly objected to the defendant receiving likely good medical care and having likely access to a good lawyer. (With the statement easily interpreted as Trump also objecting to the defendant receiving either of these things at all the way he said it.)
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,446
7,613
136
Maybe Trump should just make things simpler and give us all a list of which parts of the constitution he doesn't have a problem with. I guess Trump expects to be judge, jury and executioner in cases like these if elected. Have the suspects kneel in the street and give them a fatal shot in the back of the head. This is the kind of ideal this Christian country was built on!
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Anyone notice when terrorism comes up Republicans NEVER mention Charlestown?

What's to mention? The perp was captured and was indicted on murder charges. Trial next year with a death sentence being sought. That was actually an issue in the Democratic primary because Sanders opposed the death penalty for Dylan Roof and Clinton supported it.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,560
136
What's to mention? The perp was captured and was indicted on murder charges. Trial next year with a death sentence being sought. That was actually an issue in the Democratic primary because Sanders opposed the death penalty for Dylan Roof and Clinton supported it.
What's to mention?? The San Bernadino terrorists were shot and killed by police and Republicans bring it up all the time. What is it about Charlestown that isn't worth talking about??
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
It's clear that Trump doesn't give a shit about the law.

On that we'll agree.
I was most disappointed / upset when he spoke of how "well" the terrorist is going to be treated. But that follows Trump's MO of wanting Snowden "executed" for "treason".
 

Herr Kutz

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,545
242
106
And libs straight up shit on the first and second amendment. Where is your outrage OP?
 

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
574
126
Silly Trump. You're supposed to behave like Obama and (1) administer trial by drone missile strike and (2) not talk about the stuff that #1 entails like due process and whatnot. Out of sight and vaporized terrorists are out of mind terrorists.

Agreed and I think this is the point. It's like he just pulled his head out of his ass yesterday. He's clueless.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
What's to mention?? The San Bernadino terrorists were shot and killed by police and Republicans bring it up all the time. What is it about Charlestown that isn't worth talking about??

Again, what exactly would you have them say? I haven't observed them actively avoiding the subject when asked and San Bernadino is more recent example. I'm sure the NYC bombings from a couple days ago and the MN mall stabbings get mentioned more by Republicans and Democrats alike because of recency bias. In any event I'm unsure why you seem fixated on it given the OP subject, are you just clinging to the Charleston thing because you can say "Aha, here's a terror attack done by a white guy!" Attacks by white guys still get mentioned also, see Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine school shooters, etc.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Why didn't you bother to mention the whole point of the article was reporting on a DEATH PENALTY PROTEST, not a "Support McVeigh--he's innocent" demonstration as you have tried to insinuate?
I know the term gets overused here... but DAMN, something clearly triggered you!

I didn't insinuate anything, dummy,

Someone pointed out that bleeding hearts weren't crying for McVeigh because he wasn't a member of a PC-protected class.

Someone else, replying to a point made about McVeigh issued a challenge to find where just 1 bleeding heart tried to save McVeigh from the death penalty... (or possibly didn't realize that was what he was seemingly responding to, given the big picture of "this guy" and everything he quoted...

I produced a quote with some idiot holding up a "Sorry TIm!" sign even. If it something gets more bleeding heart stupid than that, I'm not sure what it is. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on all 120 though, so he can feel he won his 1 person challenge.

Not sure what triggered your idiotic reply, but I suspect something along the lines that causes you to be outraged like a loon over what Trump isn't actually quoted as saying.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Trump says and does many stupid things. No need to make up shit, wait a day or two and he'll give you something to be rightfully upset about. I don't have a problem with what he said. Your rant seems bias and silly to me. Trump said he'd get a lawyer, and have a speedy and fair trial. He said people would probably forget about it by the time it's over, which is probably true. Unless there is more than the supplied quotes I'm not aware of. That article is heavy in bias though, laughably so.
Pretty much spot on.

Some peeps won't know what to do with themselves after Trump loses in Nov. They won't have stupid shit like this to get all frothing at the mouth over.

As goofy as Trump is, it amazes me how his detractors can consistently out-goof him. I don't even like the man, there ought to be just nothing but one-sided scorn heaped at him, but the mouth-frothers can't even pick a good battle.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
So this absurd belief that liberals "sympathize" or want to help terrorists developed because they want to give all US citizens the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Isn't that the MORE patriotic thing to do?! Shitting on the constitution for certain people seems extremely un-American to me..

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
20,928
19,361
136
Trump says and does many stupid things. No need to make up shit, wait a day or two and he'll give you something to be rightfully upset about. I don't have a problem with what he said. Your rant seems bias and silly to me. Trump said he'd get a lawyer, and have a speedy and fair trial. He said people would probably forget about it by the time it's over, which is probably true. Unless there is more than the supplied quotes I'm not aware of. That article is heavy in bias though, laughably so.

He clearly expresses displeasure with due process altogether in one of the article's links, and expresses displeasure with the suspects receiving a decent attorney. So what if some time passes while they are in custody and they get sentenced - this country has been pretty strict on criminals - including non-violent ones. Ergo he is not thrilled with the 6th amendment. Or due process for American citizens. Two things that make this country great he isn't happy with. Trump 2016!
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,279
10,192
136
He clearly expresses displeasure with due process altogether in one of the article's links, and expresses displeasure with the suspects receiving a decent attorney. So what if some time passes while they are in custody and they get sentenced - this country has been pretty strict on criminals - including non-violent ones. Ergo he is not thrilled with the 6th amendment. Or due process for American citizens. Two things that make this country great he isn't happy with. Trump 2016!
This is hilarious coming from a man, who has teams of lawyers getting him out of constant legal problems.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
So much for the second amendment protects all others BS. Gun nuts are the biggest authoritarians out there.
I wouldn't go so far as to generalize all gun nuts like that, but that is an astute observation in this specific case. Ironic.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
So I take it you therefore condemn the Obama "trial and execution by jury of UAV drone missiles" then?
Not sure how that is relevant. That is a different subject and you're deflecting.

However, sidetracking, I think drone killings of American citizens is unconstitutional. All American citizens have right to a trial by jury which drone killing circumvented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
The guy's a war criminal for that, which is...God-awful. Really every president we've had since and including Nixon should have died at the end of a rope. We as a nation are very, very close to the edge.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,560
136
Again, what exactly would you have them say? I haven't observed them actively avoiding the subject when asked and San Bernadino is more recent example. I'm sure the NYC bombings from a couple days ago and the MN mall stabbings get mentioned more by Republicans and Democrats alike because of recency bias. In any event I'm unsure why you seem fixated on it given the OP subject, are you just clinging to the Charleston thing because you can say "Aha, here's a terror attack done by a white guy!" Attacks by white guys still get mentioned also, see Timothy McVeigh, the Columbine school shooters, etc.
My point is Republicans are to this day very chatty when it comes to terrorism if San Bernardino is involved instead of terrorism, period. By your logic since the perps are no longer they should cease to discuss it. Again your logic. Why is Charlestown always excluded by Republicans when terrorism is the subject.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Donald Trump isn't alone in wanting to subvert people's rights. Lindsey Graham called today for treating this suspect as an enemy combatant. http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-york-explosion/senator-graham


So much for due process and anything like that. I hear the Philippines is nice now that they've just turned to shooting people with little evidence.

I actually like trying people as enemy combatants when they pull shit like this. Civilians want to join the WoT against their country? Well, congrats traitor enemy combatant, you're now in a Mil court of law.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I actually like trying people as enemy combatants when they pull shit like this. Civilians want to join the WoT against their country? Well, congrats traitor enemy combatant, you're now in a Mil court of law.

Why bother, just shoot them.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
My point is Republicans are to this day very chatty when it comes to terrorism if San Bernardino is involved instead of terrorism, period. By your logic since the perps are no longer they should cease to discuss it. Again your logic. Why is Charlestown always excluded by Republicans when terrorism is the subject.

I'm guessing you can't keep two related but distinct subjects in mind at once. One subject is whether Muslim terrorism is of altogether more critical level of threat to Americans versus terrorism done by others (such as Christians) and a second separate but related issue is our immigration policy. Charleston was an act of non-Muslim terror but committed by a citizen born here and always living in the U.S. Changing our immigration policy to restrict Muslims or whatever wouldn't have stopped Dylan Roof and whether limiting Muslim immigration is a good idea or not is completely moot in that case.

Compare that with the San Bernadino shootings where one of the perps was a Muslim immigrant born in Pakistan. In that case a change in immigration policy *MIGHT* have stopped that instance of terrorism from occurring as Malik theoretically may have never gotten into the U.S. Again, whether making such a change to immigration policy is a good idea or whether we should implement it either way is an entirely different question.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I'm guessing you can't keep two related but distinct subjects in mind at once. One subject is whether Muslim terrorism is of altogether more critical level of threat to Americans versus terrorism done by others (such as Christians) and a second separate but related issue is our immigration policy. Charleston was an act of non-Muslim terror but committed by a citizen born here and always living in the U.S. Changing our immigration policy to restrict Muslims or whatever wouldn't have stopped Dylan Roof and whether limiting Muslim immigration is a good idea or not is completely moot in that case.

Compare that with the San Bernadino shootings where one of the perps was a Muslim immigrant born in Pakistan. In that case a change in immigration policy *MIGHT* have stopped that instance of terrorism from occurring as Malik theoretically may have never gotten into the U.S. Again, whether making such a change to immigration policy is a good idea or whether we should implement it either way is an entirely different question.

Terrorism is in particular a big deal because white people are being killed. It's like the pretty white girl missing national headline news, or in this case they're coming for our white womens.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
I'm guessing you can't keep two related but distinct subjects in mind at once. One subject is whether Muslim terrorism is of altogether more critical level of threat to Americans versus terrorism done by others (such as Christians) and a second separate but related issue is our immigration policy. Charleston was an act of non-Muslim terror but committed by a citizen born here and always living in the U.S. Changing our immigration policy to restrict Muslims or whatever wouldn't have stopped Dylan Roof and whether limiting Muslim immigration is a good idea or not is completely moot in that case.

Compare that with the San Bernadino shootings where one of the perps was a Muslim immigrant born in Pakistan. In that case a change in immigration policy *MIGHT* have stopped that instance of terrorism from occurring as Malik theoretically may have never gotten into the U.S. Again, whether making such a change to immigration policy is a good idea or whether we should implement it either way is an entirely different question.

You're about as narrow minded as chucky to be honest.

Just trying to elaborate more still will not change that fact.