Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
MTP Reggie

Republicans Hope to Sway Voters With Labels That Demonize Democrats

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Ladybird

Are you referring to this ad?

 

http://apps.frontline.org/clinton-trump-keys-to-their-characters/pdf/trump-newspaper.pdf

 

I read the ad, and I did not see anything about the accused.

 

As for the lawsuit what was the outcome.

 

When Did Donald Trump become a Racist?

 

Ann Coulter: Central Park Rapists—Trump Was Right!

 

Calling for the death penalty before they were even brought to trial.

His insistence even after another man confessed, that they are still guilty.

 

Yes, his daddy’s firm signed a consent decree without admitting wrongdoing doing. That doesn’t change the fact that black applicants who were equally qualified as whites were turned away.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067

 

 

 

Be that as it may, my response was strictly about the meme which claimed that Donald Trump was never accused of racism before he ran against Hillary Clinton. That is a bald faced lie.

Edited by Ladybird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

You’re right. You have missed something.

You’ve called out leftists? Link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

You’ve called out leftists? Link?

Don’t have time for all that. If you choose to notice only when I’m being contrary to your causes, that’s not my problem.

 

Just a reminder though, I did not vote for lesser of two evils in last presidential election, and have stated so numerous times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Don’t have time for all that. If you choose to notice only when I’m being contrary to your causes, that’s not my problem.

 

Just a reminder though, I did not vote for lesser of two evils in last presidential election, and have stated so numerous times.

Okay - I’m not going to reject your statement simply because you won’t look for a link. I wouldn’t either TBH. Too much work. However, I will ask this in all honesty. When have you criticized leftists on RN?

 

Regarding your reminder notice there. You did NOT vote for the lesser of two evils. Okay then. That could be one of 2 options.

1. You didn’t vote for Trump. That’s a given, but for most here who weren’t behind Trump, he was still the much lesser of two evils. Point being though, this one wouldn’t prove that you criticized a leftist. Obviously.

2. You didn’t vote for Hillary. If you classify Hillary as the lesser of two evils, that means you’re already siding with the left. I guess this is what you mean - but then you try to claim that by not voting for her, you’re against her to an amount that qualifies as being against the left. That’s a weak claim. But you might just squeak by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Don’t have time for all that. If you choose to notice only when I’m being contrary to your causes, that’s not my problem.

 

Just a reminder though, I did not vote for lesser of two evils in last presidential election, and have stated so numerous times.

I didn’t either. I voted against the known evil and gave BOD to the unknown.

 

You might not have voted for HRC but you would never vote for an R for Pres. I would have voted for James Webb, a D from VA, but he wasn’t bat crap crazy enough for your lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Pagan

Calling for the death penalty before they were even brought to trial.

His insistence even after another man confessed, that they are still guilty.

 

Yes, his daddy’s firm signed a consent decree without admitting wrongdoing doing. That doesn’t change the fact that black applicants who were equally qualified as whites were turned away.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067

 

 

 

Be that as it may, my response was strictly about the meme which claimed that Donald Trump was never accused of racism before he ran against Hillary Clinton. That is a bald faced lie.

 

I take it you still have not read the ad.

 

Do you mean the confession where he claimed that he came across the jogger after she had been attacked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

I didn’t either. I voted against the known evil and gave BOD to the unknown.

 

You might not have voted for HRC but you would never vote for an R for Pres. I would have voted for James Webb, a D from VA, but he wasn’t bat crap crazy enough for your lot.

I would have never voted for Trump - and never will, but I did vote for Gary Johnson and I would consider voting for Nikki Haley. You don’t know me and have no idea whom I would or would not choose.

Edited by Ladybird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

I take it you still have not read the ad.

 

Do you mean the confession where he claimed that he came across the jogger after she had been attacked?

And DNA matched what was found on the jogger, which none of the boys arrested matched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Pagan

And DNA matched what was found on the jogger, which none of the boys arrested matched?

 

 

From the article I posted:

 

Unfortunately for Meili, she was guilty of white privilege, while her attackers belonged to the "people of color" Brahmin caste. So, after waiting an interminable 13 years, the media proclaimed that the five convicts had been "exonerated" by DNA evidence!

 

DNA evidence didn't convict them, so it couldn't exonerate them. This was a gang attack. It was always known that another rapist "got away," as the prosecutor told the jury, and that none of the defendants' DNA was found in the jogger's cervix or on her sock—the only samples that were taken.

 

While it blows most people away to find out that none of the suspects' DNA was found on Meili, the whole trick is that they're looking at it through a modern lens. Today, these kids' DNA would have been found all over the crime scene. But in 1989, DNA was a primitive science. The cops wouldn't have even looked for such evidence back then.

 

The case was solved with other evidence—and there was a lot of it.

 

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t--s." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet.

 

Yusef Salaam announced to the detective interviewing him, "I was there, but I didn't rape her." Even if true, under the law, anyone who participated in the attack on Meili is guilty of her rape.

 

Two of Korey Wise's friends said that when they ran into him on the street the day after the attack, he told them the cops were after him. "You heard about that woman that was beat up and raped in the park last night? That was us!"

 

Taken to the scene of the crime by a detective and a prosecutor, he said, "Damn, damn, that's a lot of blood. ... I knew she was bleeding, but I didn't know how bad she was. It was dark. I couldn't see how much blood there was at night."

 

Wise also told a detective that someone he thought was named "Rudy" stole the jogger's Walkman and belt pouch. The jogger was still in a coma. The police did not know yet that a Walkman had been stolen from her.

 

Wise told a friend's sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn't rape the jogger; he "only held her legs down while Kevin (Richardson) f---ed her." Jackson volunteered this information to the police, thinking it would help Wise.

 

The night of the attack, Richardson told an acquaintance, "We just raped somebody." The crotch of his underwear was suspiciously stained with semen, grass stains, dirt and debris. Walking near the crime scene with a detective the next day, Richardson said, "This is where we got her ... where the raping occurred."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

From the article I posted:

 

Unfortunately for Meili, she was guilty of white privilege, while her attackers belonged to the "people of color" Brahmin caste. So, after waiting an interminable 13 years, the media proclaimed that the five convicts had been "exonerated" by DNA evidence!

 

DNA evidence didn't convict them, so it couldn't exonerate them. This was a gang attack. It was always known that another rapist "got away," as the prosecutor told the jury, and that none of the defendants' DNA was found in the jogger's cervix or on her sock—the only samples that were taken.

 

While it blows most people away to find out that none of the suspects' DNA was found on Meili, the whole trick is that they're looking at it through a modern lens. Today, these kids' DNA would have been found all over the crime scene. But in 1989, DNA was a primitive science. The cops wouldn't have even looked for such evidence back then.

 

The case was solved with other evidence—and there was a lot of it.

 

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t--s." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet.

 

Yusef Salaam announced to the detective interviewing him, "I was there, but I didn't rape her." Even if true, under the law, anyone who participated in the attack on Meili is guilty of her rape.

 

Two of Korey Wise's friends said that when they ran into him on the street the day after the attack, he told them the cops were after him. "You heard about that woman that was beat up and raped in the park last night? That was us!"

 

Taken to the scene of the crime by a detective and a prosecutor, he said, "Damn, damn, that's a lot of blood. ... I knew she was bleeding, but I didn't know how bad she was. It was dark. I couldn't see how much blood there was at night."

 

Wise also told a detective that someone he thought was named "Rudy" stole the jogger's Walkman and belt pouch. The jogger was still in a coma. The police did not know yet that a Walkman had been stolen from her.

 

Wise told a friend's sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn't rape the jogger; he "only held her legs down while Kevin (Richardson) f---ed her." Jackson volunteered this information to the police, thinking it would help Wise.

 

The night of the attack, Richardson told an acquaintance, "We just raped somebody." The crotch of his underwear was suspiciously stained with semen, grass stains, dirt and debris. Walking near the crime scene with a detective the next day, Richardson said, "This is where we got her ... where the raping occurred."

 

You mean the one from that racist website? No thanks. I wondered where John Derbyshire landed.

 

The NYPD and the DA’s office were under tremendous pressure to quickly deliver a slam dunk to the jury. Full page ads from Doanld Trump was part of that pressure. If any of these boys raped her, why was the man who confessed the only DNA found? Witnesses get leaned on and kids confess under intense interrogation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

It's no surprise that dumb lefties are criticizing and diminishing yet ANOTHER piece of the first amendment; that being the freedom to associate - and calling it their new buzz-word "tribalism".

 

No matter how they look at the first Amendment, they can find a problem with it...AND they think they are being our "moral betters" and easily cast judgment by lecturing us about it on an anonymous message board, when they actually look like petty, finger-pointing name-callers, you bunch of TRIBALISTS!!!

 

How pathetic and sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

You mean the one from that racist website? No thanks. I wondered where John Derbyshire landed.

 

The NYPD and the DA’s office were under tremendous pressure to quickly deliver a slam dunk to the jury. Full page ads from Doanld Trump was part of that pressure. If any of these boys raped her, why was the man who confessed the only DNA found? Witnesses get leaned on and kids confess under intense interrogation.

 

In.Cred.Ib.Le.

 

First off, the DNA seeming-discrepancy was carefully explained. And as for "pressure" to "confess", what about the examples of the things that were confessed before the police even knew about them, like Raymond Santana's comment about the rape on the way to the precinct, before the police even knew she'd been raped?

 

Or Korey Wise who, when shown the crime scene, stated "Damn, damn, that's a lot of blood. ... I knew she was bleeding, but I didn't know how bad she was. It was dark. I couldn't see how much blood there was at night."

 

Or Kevin Richardson, whose underwear was stained with semen, grass stains, dirt & debris, while walking near the crime scene with a detective the next day said, "This is where we got her ... where the raping occurred."

 

Was he "pressured" to "confess" to the stains on the underwear? Or were they just there?

 

I can't believe you'd bend over this far trying to exonerate anybody so obviously guilty.

 

Well OK, maybe I can believe it...

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

You don’t know me and have no idea whom I would or would not choose.

This is true; virtually (good pun haha) no one knows anyone else here.

 

Thus, when I make comments about Ladybird, they are about the poster named Ladybird whom I know a little bit, based on her prior opinions, and not about the actual real person whom I don’t know.

 

The comments you get back are strictly about your online personality. If you don’t like what is being said, then you need to evaluate your own statements (unlikely) or not give a damn (likely).

Edited by zurg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

So same old same 5000 posts. Please lb. Anton, who ever that guy is,,, is your party guilty of this. No but the republicans.... come on for once admit the truth and condemn them. You can do it. Like I said I’ve never seen one of you do that unless followed up by a but...... republicans did. That’s bs I learned at 16 yrs old I was wrong, but... is not an appoligy. Keep making excuses. All 3 of you look ignorant just from someone following the site from the outside. But god bless ignorant democrats talked by up. Keep voicing keep showing your parties true colors. That’s the best advertising conservitaves have. I want it, Nancy, Bernie and joe Biden on tv talking everyday before the next election. Hey get your leaders and biggest brains out there go new deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
usapatriot

It's a LOSING strategy. Pray to the almighty the republican'ts don't adopt this.

 

LOOK ME IN THE EYE if you're a Republican candidate: Don't tell me about the other guy's flaws. Believe me, I already know them. Tell me how YOU, personally, are going to make MY life better if I vote for you.

 

ANY Republican who can't enunciate this, clearly and specifically, doesn't deserve their job.

 

Is this too much to ask?

The best defense is a good offense. Here's what almost always happens with Republicans running for office. The DumbocRAT spreads all kinds of lies about the Republican and then he/she spends all of their time responding to their accusations (I'm not a racist, really!). What Republicans need to do is exactly what Trump did to win...go on offense. Trump did not let Hildabeast hide from any of her MANY criminal activities AND he said what is was going to do to "Make America Great Again". Trump also called out the "fake news" on anything they reported on him and it is so effective that trust in the main stream media is in the single digits. So, your comment only covers one third of what a Republican needs to do to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Pagan

The best defense is a good offense. Here's what almost always happens with Republicans running for office. The DumbocRAT spreads all kinds of lies about the Republican and then he/she spends all of their time responding to their accusations (I'm not a racist, really!). What Republicans need to do is exactly what Trump did to win...go on offense. Trump did not let Hildabeast hide from any of her MANY criminal activities AND he said what is was going to do to "Make America Great Again". Trump also called out the "fake news" on anything they reported on him and it is so effective that trust in the main stream media is in the single digits. So, your comment only covers one third of what a Republican needs to do to win.

 

My favorite is when the Democrat calls for a civil campaign. The Republican agrees. The Democrat release an attack ad full of lies. The Republican releases a counter-ad pointing out the Democrat lied. The Democrat says the ad was in the pipeline so they could not pull it. The lapdog media then reports how the Republican is to blame for incivility in the campaign as they broke their promise to be civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

I would have never voted for Trump - and never will, but I did vote for Gary Johnson and I would consider voting for Nikki Haley. You dont know me and have no idea whom I would or would not choose.

Your TDS is quite well known so no one is under the illusion you would ever vote for Trump.

 

You are right. I don't "know you" and, therefore, I can only go by your posts. Your posts indicate that you would never vote for a Republican as President. All you do is "what abouts" on Republicans while refusing to even acknowledge the massive, steaming Piles o'S on the side of the Democrats that, when commented upon, trigger you to pull out your what abouts. You don't even seem capable of recognizing your hypocrisy. People on a message board are ALWAYS going to judge you on your posts. If you don't like that, then don't post.

 

 

 

Gary Johnson did not run as a Republican.

Edited by JerryL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

I voted against the known evil

 

This again?

 

There is still no "vote against" option on any ballot. You made an affirmative choice, just own it.

 

and gave BOD to the unknown.

 

Nothing about Trump's lack of character or fitness for the office was "unknown," Jerry.

 

You chose to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who clearly didn't deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

This again?

 

There is still no "vote against" option on any ballot. You made an affirmative choice, just own it.

That semantics game isn’t truthful.

 

If there’s candidate A and candidate B, you can do one of three things. Vote for A. Vote for B. Vote for neither.

 

Vote for neither is neutral. Vote for A is either done affirmatively for A or negatingly against B. Likewise regarding vote for B.

 

You can cherry pick (as you leftists always do) and claim it can be only an affirmative choice, but in reality you don’t know why someone voted the way they did.

 

You see, if you had any honesty and curiosity, you’d ask Jerry what he would have done if there had been the following choices:

1 - vote for Trump (+1)

2 - vote for Hillary (+1)

3 - vote against Trump (-1)

4 - vote against Hillary (-1)

5 - abstain

 

I bet Jerry would have picked #4. But since that wasn’t a choice, he did the next best thing, but in his mind it was the best approximation and reason for #4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

This again?

 

There is still no "vote against" option on any ballot. You made an affirmative choice, just own it.

 

 

 

Nothing about Trump's lack of character or fitness for the office was "unknown," Jerry.

 

You chose to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who clearly didn't deserve it.

 

Keep on pissinginthewind, Hamilton.

 

That semantics game isn’t truthful.

 

If there’s candidate A and candidate B, you can do one of three things. Vote for A. Vote for B. Vote for neither.

 

Vote for neither is neutral. Vote for A is either done affirmatively for A or negatingly against B. Likewise regarding vote for B.

 

You can cherry pick (as you leftists always do) and claim it can be only an affirmative choice, but in reality you don’t know why someone voted the way they did.

 

You see, if you had any honesty and curiosity, you’d ask Jerry what he would have done if there had been the following choices:

1 - vote for Trump (+1)

2 - vote for Hillary (+1)

3 - vote against Trump (-1)

4 - vote against Hillary (-1)

5 - abstain

 

I bet Jerry would have picked #4. But since that wasn’t a choice, he did the next best thing, but in his mind it was the best approximation and reason for #4.

 

Mental_Midget math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

That semantics game isnt truthful.

 

If theres candidate A and candidate B, you can do one of three things. Vote for A. Vote for B. Vote for neither.

 

Vote for neither is neutral. Vote for A is either done affirmatively for A or negatingly against B. Likewise regarding vote for B.

 

You can cherry pick (as you leftists always do) and claim it can be only an affirmative choice, but in reality you dont know why someone voted the way they did.

 

You see, if you had any honesty and curiosity, youd ask Jerry what he would have done if there had been the following choices:

1 - vote for Trump (+1)

2 - vote for Hillary (+1)

3 - vote against Trump (-1)

4 - vote against Hillary (-1)

5 - abstain

 

I bet Jerry would have picked #4. But since that wasnt a choice, he did the next best thing, but in his mind it was the best approximation and reason for #4.

Pretty close, Zurg. You know I am not the biggest Trump fan out there but still very happy with what he has done. What makes me even happier, though, is him doing what he is doing while HRC is still NOT president. The icing on the cake is all the leftards completely losing their excrement over DJT.

 

It has had the whole vote against explained to him ad nauseum. Unless the Republican nominee was worse than HRC, they were getting my vote. Period. Had the Dem candidate been anyone but her, I might have voted 3rd party.

 

But if it wants to say I voted "for" Trump, that is fine with me because HRC is STILL NOT president.

Edited by JerryL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Pretty close, Zurg. You know I am not the biggest Trump fan out there but still very happy with what he has done. What makes me even happier, though, is him doing what he is doing while HRC is still NOT president. The icing on the cake is all the leftards completely losing their excrement over DJT.

 

It has had the whole vote against explained to him ad nauseum. Unless the Republican nominee was worse than HRC, they were getting my vote. Period. Had the Dem candidate been anyone but her, I might have voted 3rd party.

 

But if it wants to say I voted "for" Trump, that is fine with me because HRC is STILL NOT president.

Yup. And I understand that people had their reservations about Trump but may have somewhat or largely changed their minds as results started coming in.

 

I’ve been critical at times of those on the right who initially were very weary of Trump. I should apologize, because I now see many of those supporting him - for a good reason, for the better of American society at large, not because someone told them to. An independent decision. So we all can change opinions as new data/evidence comes in. Nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MTP Reggie
So we all can change opinions as new data/evidence comes in.

 

Intelligent people do.

 

democrats? Not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Intelligent people do.

 

democrats? Not so much.

That whole “intelligence” thing kind of hamstrings them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

This again?

 

There is still no "vote against" option on any ballot. You made an affirmative choice, just own it.

 

ROFFLMFAO! This crap again?? :woot: Good GAWD you've got oatmeal for brains (and I hereby sincerely apologize to oatmeal for the insulting comparison.)

 

Yes it's true the words "vote against" don't appear on the ballot anywhere, but that doesn't change the indisputable fact that the reason any given person votes for any given candidate can be because they know perfectly well their vote for candidate "A" will count as a vote against candidate "B". Any denial of anything so conspicuously true and undeniable indicates an extraordinary level of stupidity in the denier.

 

 

Nothing about Trump's lack of character or fitness for the office was "unknown," Jerry.

 

You chose to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who clearly didn't deserve it.

 

"Clearly didn't deserve it"? Well, except for what a GREAT JOB he's doing. Clearly he deserved it much more than anybody else in the running, on either side of the aisle.

 

There were plenty of us (Jerry & I both, for just two of millions of possible examples) who were very reluctant to vote for Trump, and only did so because of the INDISPUTABLE fact that it counted as a vote against the INDISPUTABLY corrupt and unqualified Hillary Clinton. But Trump's great performance in office so far has been greatly encouraging. I'll be voting for him again in 2020, only this time it will be enthusiastically rather than reluctantly.

 

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...