• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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.
Ackmed said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
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!
 
HomerJS said:
Anyone notice when terrorism comes up Republicans NEVER mention Charlestown?
Click to expand...

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.
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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??
 
DrDoug said:
It's clear that Trump doesn't give a shit about the law.
Click to expand...

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".
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed and I think this is the point. It's like he just pulled his head out of his ass yesterday. He's clueless.
 
HomerJS said:
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??
Click to expand...

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.
 
Meghan54 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ackmed said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Ackmed said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
PixelSquish said:
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!
Click to expand...
This is hilarious coming from a man, who has teams of lawyers getting him out of constant legal problems.
 
glenn1 said:
So I take it you therefore condemn the Obama "trial and execution by jury of UAV drone missiles" then?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Brainonska511 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HomerJS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
glenn1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Just trying to elaborate more still will not change that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top