• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Day 2 at the DNC.....seriously?

I remember when she fought for that innocent 12 year old rape victim. Oh...wait...
 
Trayvon had no "battle wounds" except the gunshot --- the evidence shows he was on top of Zimmerman beating him up. The witnesses closest to the scene corroborate that.

Yet none of that makes "your" description of what happen to be factual. You have your opinion and you are welcome to it. What I know is neither of us was there and there was no evidence that shows "Martin was the aggressor the entire time and got himself killed"
 
Yet none of that makes "your" description of what happen to be factual. You have your opinion and you are welcome to it. What I know is neither of us was there and there was no evidence that shows "Martin was the aggressor the entire time and got himself killed"

He was on top, he beat Zimmerman, and when he was shot, he was still on top, which are the parts that matter, and mattered to the court and the jury. We really shouldn't derail this thread with questioning the jury or the evidence in the Zimmerman case though.
 
He was on top, he beat Zimmerman, and when he was shot, he was still on top, which are the parts that matter, and mattered to the court and the jury. We really shouldn't derail this thread with questioning the jury or the evidence in the Zimmerman case though.

Thank you. I really don't want to relitigate the Martin case.

I can't understand this, at all. And there is no logical explanation for it.
 
Yet none of that makes "your" description of what happen to be factual. You have your opinion and you are welcome to it. What I know is neither of us was there and there was no evidence that shows "Martin was the aggressor the entire time and got himself killed"

"My description" was evidence in the trial, not an opinion. If he wasn't the aggressor that would mean he would have injuries consistent with being beat up by Zimmerman. He wasn't the one being beat up --- he wasn't the one on the bottom being pinned down, punched and his head smashed into the side of the sidewalk. His only injury was the gunshot. There is no other conclusion to make. Travyon was on top beating the **** out of Zimmerman. The jury heard all the evidence --- I and many others here watched the entire trial and heard all the evidence (even evidence the jury didn't hear) and 90% of people came to the same conclusion ---- not guilty of murder. That doesn't mean Zimmerman is a good guy -- he's a total idiot and paranoid.

I know the media sensationalists portrayed it differently. If you didn't actually watch the trial and listen to all the evidence, I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion.
 
You're not outraged that Hillary and the DNC want to continue to crucify police officers and perpetuate the lie that they just want to kill black people?

Hello straw man. Glenn gave you a really bad argument to try.
 
He was on top, he beat Zimmerman, and when he was shot, he was still on top, which are the parts that matter, and mattered to the court and the jury. We really shouldn't derail this thread with questioning the jury or the evidence in the Zimmerman case though.

No one said anything about that, I said the statement that "martin was the aggressor the whole time and got himself killed" isn't a factual statement, is that unreasonable? I would never say anything like that because there's no evidence to support that.Is that unreasonable? I don't want to derail the thread either which is why I sad people are free to have thier opinions. Is that unreasonable?
 
Hello straw man. Glenn gave you a really bad argument to try.

Oh, here we go again. Nothing else to say but "Glenn Beck!!!!!!" I haven't listened to him in years Redress. Time for a new insult.

That's not a strawman --- BLM's main mantra is that white policeman are just out to kill black people.
 
No one said anything about that, I said the statement that "martin was the aggressor the whole time and got himself killed" isn't a factual statement, is that unreasonable? I would never say anything like that because there's no evidence to support that.Is that unreasonable? I don't want to derail the thread either which is why I sad people are free to have thier opinions. Is that unreasonable?

But there is. That's why the jury decided "not guilty".
 
Oh, here we go again. Nothing else to say but "Glenn Beck!!!!!!" I haven't listened to him in years Redress. Time for a new insult.

That's not a strawman --- BLM's main mantra is that white policeman are just out to kill black people.

Are the people invited BLM?
 
Paying homage to victim culture rarely/never is a loser idea, and D's have never been known to resist the temptation to do it.
 
"My description" was evidence in the trial, not an opinion. If he wasn't the aggressor that would mean he would have injuries consistent with being beat up by Zimmerman. He wasn't the one being beat up --- he wasn't the one on the bottom being pinned down, punched and his head smashed into the side of the sidewalk. His only injury was the gunshot. There is no other conclusion to make. Travyon was on top beating the **** out of Zimmerman. The jury heard all the evidence --- I and many others here watched the entire trial and heard all the evidence (even evidence the jury didn't hear) and 90% of people came to the same conclusion ---- not guilty of murder. That doesn't mean Zimmerman is a good guy -- he's a total idiot and paranoid.

I know the media sensationalists portrayed it differently. If you didn't actually watch the trial and listen to all the evidence, I can see how you'd come to a different conclusion.
By definition it was your opinion. Your statement was "Martin was the aggressor the whole time and he got himself killed" There's no evidence that makes that statement a fact. Never said he was guilty of murder but I did watch the trial and listen to all the evidence, that's exactly the thing that lets me know your statement is just you opinion and not factual.
 
By definition it was your opinion. Your statement was "Martin was the aggressor the whole time and he got himself killed" There's no evidence that makes that statement a fact. Never said he was guilty of murder but I did watch the trial and listen to all the evidence, that's exactly the thing that lets me know your statement is just you opinion and not factual.

Is it a fact that Trayvon had no injuries other than a gunshot wound?
 
Thank you. I really don't want to relitigate the Martin case.

I can't understand this, at all. And there is no logical explanation for it.

It's just more evidence of the politics of division and creating support through racial rage. I'm not just concerned, I'm ****ing pissed at the DNC that they are portraying, once again, that blacks are systemically oppressed by whites by holding up criminals as though they were victims of white people killing blacks for racial reasons when they actually were responsible for their own deaths by their own actions. It's **** like that which leads to police and others being ambushed and assassinated.

If they want to talk about children and families, then lets have a real discussion of why, as the Dallas police chief said, 70% of black children are born to single mothers?!?! How can we expect children to have a decent childhood when they are intentionally born into such situations? That's just part of what we need to talk about, not lies about how the white system is killing "innocent" children.

But no, that doesn't get people into the streets, or to the voting booth.
 
Reaklt? Mothers of the Movement are BLM? Some one should probably let them know...

Never said that. Speaking of strawmen...
 
No one said anything about that, I said the statement that "martin was the aggressor the whole time and got himself killed" isn't a factual statement, is that unreasonable? I would never say anything like that because there's no evidence to support that.Is that unreasonable? I don't want to derail the thread either which is why I sad people are free to have thier opinions. Is that unreasonable?

That "he was the aggressor the whole time" is not provable, however, he damn sure got himself shot and killed. To prevent derail, that's the last post for me on Zimmerman.
 
I agree.... sorry, tres. This isn't the thread to rehash the Zimmerman trial.
 
It's just more evidence of the politics of division and creating support through racial rage. I'm not just concerned, I'm ****ing pissed at the DNC that they are portraying, once again, that blacks are systemically oppressed by whites by holding up criminals as though they were victims of white people killing blacks for racial reasons when they actually were responsible for their own deaths by their own actions. It's **** like that which leads to police and others being ambushed and assassinated.

If they want to talk about children and families, then lets have a real discussion of why, as the Dallas police chief said, 70% of black children are born to single mothers?!?! How can we expect children to have a decent childhood when they are intentionally born into such situations? That's just part of what we need to talk about, not about how the white system is killing "innocent" children.

But no, that doesn't get people into the streets, or to the voting booth.

Thank you for understanding my OP (and for wanting to discuss it and not Trayvon Martin). You are exactly 100% in sync with me. This is weak, dishonest, and sickening that the DNC is using their platform to go down this path.

I'm very sorry for, for example, the loss that Eric Gardner's mother suffered. Losing a child is a terrible thing. My husband's brother died when he was 16 and my in laws never recovered from it. But to have his mother at the DNC, and when the theme is about families, children, and the country? What in the name of anything does Eric Gardner's death have to do with that? You're right, why not analyze why so many black children are born to single mothers, or why so many children in Chicago are killed by other blacks? Where are the mothers of all of the blacks killed by other blacks in 2016?

I find it horrific that the Clintons are doing this.

By the way, speaking of the Dallas police chief, I really like that guy. I never knew of him until last week. What an amazing person.
 
But there is. That's why the jury decided "not guilty".

That doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor and got himself killed. Are you suggesting every case that is heard and the jury says not guilty means the person charged is innoncent and was never the aggressor? I hope not because that's seriously inaccurate.


Is it a fact that Trayvon had no injuries other than a gunshot wound?

Yes, that's a fact. Evidence of "injuries" is not that sam as "aggressor" the while time. If you would like proof of that I can give you a million scenarios that show your opinion and assumption is wrong. Do you understand how facts and evidence work and what we are discussing? I'm asking you not to be a smart ass but because you have referred to the verdict a couple times already which has nothing to do with this discussion or your statement. The statement you made was simply your opinion, one you are welcome too. I have no idea why that is upsetting you or you are denying it but it is reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom