Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The problem with people uniting behind Hillary to defeat Trump is that every argument also applies to Hillary.  Republicans hate Hillary.  They hated Obama.  And the Republicans are going to be energized to take back the White House, just like the the Democrats were energized to get the White House back after eight years of George W. Bush.  So it honestly won't matter who is running for the Republicans, I think the nominee is going to get a ton of support.

The Republicans backed Jeb.  Then Rubio.  Now Cruz.  If Cruz fails or if Kasich can't steal the nomination, the Republicans will back Trump.  It'll happen.  Even the ones that hate Trump would be more terrified of Hillary in office, and they'll vote Trump to keep that from happening.

It's why this election is infuriating.  No one likes their candidate - they only hate the other side.  Cruz and Trump have abysmal favorability ratings, but Hillary isn't far behind. 

And, yes, Trump could run as a 3rd party candidate.  But so could Bernie.  As Democrats are fond of saying, he's not a Democrat and only ran so because, like you've said, the 3rd party candidates don't have much support.  But now he has the support, and if he ran as an independent, he'd get a ton of support.

Hillary is the favorite, but she's unpopular in her own party and very unpopular outside of it.  She's winning the primary with the help of the DNC, the Democratic establishment, and some very favorable primary rules.  She's not going to get people to rally to the polls in record numbers like Obama did, even if it's people running to the polls just to vote against Trump.  Throw in just the idea of indictment (even if it doesn't happen, which it probably won't), and Hillary is no sure bet.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

They don't have to unite.  If the Republicans don't bother voting, Trump loses.  I think he loses regardless.  Hillary is not well-liked, but Trump's unfavorable numbers are some of the worst of ALL-TIME!  His support is hardcore, but he appeals very poorly to true independent voters.  When pressed for specifics he dodges the question, and he's surely going to make a fool of himself in debates, news conferences, whatever.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Cruz suspended his campaign.


I need drugs.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

#NeverHillary #PrayForIndictment

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If Hillary is indicted now, Obama will make it go away. She stands a better chance of paying for her crimes after the election. Which makes me wonder who her running mate will be.

I don't think I can vote for Trump. He might as well be Hillary.


My goodness, we're in one of the stupider Sliders episodes.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz … .html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton will go to war before Donald Trump would.  If you're voting for Hillary, you're voting for war.  She'd have troops in Syria in her first 100 days.  I don't think Trump would.

107 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-05-03 23:04:47)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Something that I've been thinking about tonight watching the coverage.

100% of people have basically decided whether or not they *would* vote for Trump, right?  This isn't a normal election - Democrats aren't going to be introduced to Donald Trump as soon as primary season is over - most people in the US know him.  All the people that he's turned off are already turned off.  I honestly don't think there's anything he can do or say or could be revealed by Hillary that would cause him to lose any more votes.  He's already done and said everything, and the Republicans have tried to take him down.  It hasn't worked.

And I wonder if that explains why Hillary (and Bernie for that matter) is winning so much in national polls.  There are tons of people who are #NeverTrump but I wonder if independents/Bernie folks/populists/etc would switch to him once they actually are forced to listen to him in debates.  They might actually realize he's not that bad.

But there's no way he can lose any votes from now to the election, right?  Isn't that a positive on his side?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I don't think I can vote for Trump. He might as well be Hillary.

You should investigate the smaller parties.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://www.isidewith.com/

I'd take it twice, based on my experience.  For the first time, answer with your closest answer.  It will usually be one of those third choices (other stances).

The second time, answer yes/no to *everything* - pick the one that is closest to your beliefs.  The reason I say that is that I think most candidates say yes/no to most questions so you'll get more "matches"

#ImWithJill

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/char … -1.2626734

Now I loathe Krauthammer, but his op-ed verges on the hilarious.  Of course the "grass roots" or "Tea Party" chose the populist Trump!  NO issues will ever trump (bad pun I know) MONEY!  Abortion, foreign policy, free trade, climate change, whatever.  Throw them all out the window.  When it gets down to it, when you are broke, or struggling, there's nothing more important than money.  Americans work longer hours, get paid shit.  They've fought for decades against health insurers, been taxed to hell, and the like.  The economy greatly benefits the elite wealth class.  Hedge funds not hedge trimmers.  I told friends the MINUTE I saw Trump reference the Carrier plant being moved to Mexico from Indiana, he was going to win as long as he didn't make a complete fool of himself (he's come close several times). 

The Tea Party I always felt was hilarious.  They screamed about Obama, but deep down they are angry about the SAME things liberals are, being crapped on by the wealthy.  Sure the Paul Ryan's have whined that a class war is inappropriate but it's on like Donkey Kong.  Trump's revolution is perhaps just the start.  The days of Wall Street driven imperialism are numbered.  Mitt was their poster boy, and he was roundly rejected by voters.  Again I think Trump's policies are a welcome change, but he himself is not fit for the office.  He's imbalanced, and would be a non-stop source of embarrassment for the nation.  However, the wound he threw salt on was very real.  Economic populism, already rampantly fanned in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, is here and it's here to stay. 

Which leads me back to the Fox guy.  Republicans took on "conservative" white voters over the years, but they have continued to mistake them for actual conservatives.  Trump knew this.  He saw the opening plain as day.  Sure he was beaten up by Cruz in actual conservative (social and economic) states like Utah or South Dakota or Texas.  But in many a state, like this week in Indiana, Trump flattened Teddy almost entirely on economic populism.  He'll do nothing about it of course, but there is a path there.  Sanders proved it too.  If you take Bernie and Trump supporters, who voted mainly on economics, and combined 75% of them, you win.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

Same exact thing could be said of Hillary.  The problem is that Trump can at least claim/lie about being his own man.  Everyone knows for sure that Hillary is in Wall Street's pocket.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

Same exact thing could be said of Hillary.  The problem is that Trump can at least claim/lie about being his own man.  Everyone knows for sure that Hillary is in Wall Street's pocket.

She wasn't born into money the way he was, but she is bought and paid for.  Saying Trump is bad doesn't mean I'm saying Clinton is good.  I'm almost sure to vote for a smaller party candidate.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not saying you're a Hillbot by any means.  In fact, I'd say you've been the most level-headed in this discussion.  It just sucks that it's come down to what amounts as the two worst candidates that the parties could come up with.

They're both essentially insiders.  They're both gonna end to some sort of war.  They're both elite.  And I don't think either is really interested in making the country better for anyone but the top 1%.  So....great.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Enh; if Rome is going to burn anyway, we may as well have Nero play us a tune.  Trump will be entertaining if nothing else.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The Trump thing could still take a sharp turn. While it's unlikely, there are some avenues by which he would not get the nomination. Which makes it interesting that A. Cruz merely suspended his campaign and did not endorse Trump. I've heard that he's still running ads, but I don't know if that's true.

Paul Ryan has also not endorsed Trump yet. It's been long rumored that the party will try to get Ryan the nomination at the campaign. He says he won't take it, but they always say that.

So, however unlikely it is, there could be more politics going on here. Delegates could decide not to show up to vote for Trump, for example. Crazy things happen at conventions. I'm not saying that I believe anything like that will happen, but I think that there are some interesting angles being played by certain members of the party, each of whom would stand to benefit from a brokered convention.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

Enh; if Rome is going to burn anyway, we may as well have Nero play us a tune.  Trump will be entertaining if nothing else.

Well, my hope rests in three things.

1. The American government is structured so that if a horrible fascist is elected, there's checks and balances in place to prevent the president from doing too much harm.  I'm not in the "the president has no power so who cares?" camp, but there are things in place to keep Trump from doing too much harm.  If he crosses some line - like breaking the Geneva Convention or something - he can be kicked out of office.

2. The rest of the world might be "scared" of Trump, but I don't think the US loses any allies out of this.  Just because the rest of the world still tends to lean on the United States more than anything.  I think even the most scared of countries would just sit back for four years and hope nothing bad happens.

3. Electing Trump would force major changes in both parties.  Obviously people are turning against establishment politics, and I think both parties need to start looking at that.  If Hillary doesn't win, it will be because she's bought by Wall Street.  It could lead to reforms there.  It could lead to more people (especially down ticket) to doing more for the peoples' interests than the party's interests.  Maybe break down the parties' power a little bit.

That's maybe wishful thinking but it's my hope coming out of this mess.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The problem with the checks and balances is that the politicians have created an elite class for themselves. This is the problem with not having term limits. It allows them to live in the clouds, never beholden to the people who put them in office. They hold onto power by scheming and lying and cheating and stealing. We've seen the Constitution blatantly violated, and nobody is held accountable for it.

One of the safety measures is supposed to be the people of this country. Ultimately, we have the power to change who is in office and how things are done. However, there is a lack of education on many subjects. The media has a lot of power when it comes to what the people know, and therefore how the people think. They distort the truth all the time. Look at the recent racial tensions. A lot of that was caused by misrepresentation of the facts by the media. That misrepresentation of the truth caused anger, which led to crimes, which led to more anger. And the politicians just fueled the fire. Why? Because it's easier to lead herds of people than it is to lead individuals. As long as you keep people in groups, with "us vs them" running through their heads, they unite and become one unit. It's why the country was ever so briefly united after 9/11.


It's possible that discussing politics while editing a dystopian novel is not the best idea. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I like that Hillary is so unlikable that her own campaign is basically saying "Don't worry, Bill is going to do most of the work."

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

You know you've hit a low point when the aging rapist is you're safety net.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What's crazy is that Bill gets so much credit for fixing the economy when a) most of the benefits were due to the fact that a revolutionary piece of technology was invented during his presidency that changed the world economy as we know it and b) the policies that led to the subprime disaster were done during his watch.

So the benefits that the American economy experienced during his presidency were 1) coincidental and 2) probably not repeatable and the economical disaster during the Bush presidency were really Clinton's fault.

But, yeah, let's get Bill back in charge of stuff.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Presidents, like quarterbacks, get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go badly.  The president has little impact on the economy.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, and that's what's sorta scary if you're in the #NeverTrump category.  Most voters vote based on the economy, and if the economy dips in the next few months, it could drive people to Trump.

It reminds me of the election in the final season of the West Wing.  Vinick had that election wrapped up until the nuclear disaster flipped the script.  Something big could push the election either way, especially if Hillary continues to lock herself to Obama (although I think that's a bit silly since they seem to disagree a ton).  If Obama's final few months is uneventful and prosperous, people would want more of the same.  If something happens that trips him up, people might want a change.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I read an article awhile back that the insurance companies are going to be raising rates in October due to the failing Obamacare policies.   Could be an October surprise for a lot of people.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm still not convinced that the Democratic Party is going to unify behind Hillary.  The stuff in Nevada has gotten ugly, and the DNC (headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz) is basically attacking the Sanders campaign.  I wasn't there so I can't speak to any violence, but I'm not sure how the DNC can even claim objectivity anymore.  And when Hillary gets the nomination, I think a ton of Sanders voters are going to be pretty pissed off at the DNC *in addition* to the hate they already feel for Hillary herself.

So to get Hillary elected, the Democratic Party is willingly pissing off the majority of voters under 45.  These are not only people they need to beat Trump, but they're voters that they need down ticket.  And in 2018.  And 2020.  And 2022.  And so on and so on and so on.  This is the future of the party, and the head of the DNC is basically calling them crazy, violent zealots.

The amount of power the Clintons must have in the Democratic Party is staggering.  Because literally any candidate other than Hillary should be able to wipe the floor with Donald Trump, but the Clintons are throwing every bit of power they have to make sure that the establishment stops at nothing to make sure she wins.  I'm honestly fascinated to see what kind of meltdown would happen if she doesn't win this time.  I'm guessing it will be epic.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Bah. Hillary Clinton doesn't need any voter support to win an election! Nothing to worry about there.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well Bernie is saying that he's going to get in line and help elect someone who isn't Donald Trump.  But I don't see what's in it for Bernie to help Hillary.  He'd be well in his 80s before he could legitimately run for president again (and she'd be harder to beat as a sitting president).  If she loses, I guess he could technically run in 2020. 

But he's not a Democrat, and the DNC has been awful to him.  And apparently the Clinton campaign is scared that Bernie folks won't come, even if he campaigns for her.  Even if he's the VP!  They've alienated the Bernie crowd so much that I just don't know if they'll come around.

I still think he could run as an independent.  I was saying that Jill Stein could get some votes.  Bernie could win some states.  He could almost certainly prevent either side from getting to 270.  But Trump wins if it goes to the Senate, right?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

One more thing....and it's something I truly don't understand.

Hillary had this thing wrapped up in 2015.  It was locked and loaded.  She had basically every superdelagate, her former campaign chairwoman supporting her as the head of the DNC, support from minorities and women.  It was over.  She never had to attack Bernie or have any of her surrogates attack Bernie.  She could've praised Bernie and agreed with him and amended her policies, and started building bridges to Bernie's people from day one of her campaign.

Instead, she's burned tons of bridges.  She should've been the alternative from day one knowing that there was NO CHANCE that Bernie could win.  Instead, #NeverHillary is stronger than ever.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It goes to the House, not the Senate, if no one has a majority.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

This was Sanders' only shot.  He'll have the same difficulties running as a third party that we discussed about Trump.  Sore Loser and Simultaneous Registration laws would keep him off of the ballot in almost all states.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I thought I saw something that said he'd be allowed in 42 states.  I couldn't verify and it was a BernieBro so it's probably completely wrong smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Some of us feel that Clinton has been bought and paid for by the corporate elite. Sanders is not. America needs a man like the Bern but the corporations and uber riche are not gonna let that happen. they want to keep the country as a police state ruled by an obligarchy. Before long it will be a crime to be born poor...
Bernie Sanders supporters do not want this and have such an adversion to Clinton that they cannot bring themselves to cast a vote for this woman. Will they stay home or go Green Party? 

On the other front, the GOP is crapping their diapers. they never took Trump seriously and thus they did not try to torpedo his campaign. Now they are in a jam: if the party supports him and he loses by a landslide(very likely) they will lose some favor and even several seats in not only the Senate but the House as well. This is not what they want.
The Dems are trying to pull up some crap about his treatment of women but it may be too little too late. The GOP should have thrown their weight behind Chris Christie a year ago but he was not far enough to the Right for the fringe supporters of the party and thus they are stuck with the buffoon, Donald Trump.

I'm just waiting for a comet to smash into the planet and put us all out of our misery.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Some of the Bernie Bros will stay home or vote smaller party.  Some may even go for Trump.  The overwhelming majority will vote Clinton.

Trump is busy going back on almost all the things that made him popular to begin with.  He's taking money from all the big GOP donors, including people like Adelson that he previously trashed.  He tried to walk back the Muslim travel ban, going from hectoring "We have no choice" before South Carolina to meekly saying it was just a "suggestion".  He's distanced himself from his own tax plan, now saying he wants tax increases.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm still not sure as many people will jump to Hillary as you think.  Because these guys don't have party loyalty.  The difference between 2008 and 2016 is that the Rebels won in 2008.  Of course the older/establishment voters were going to get in line.  Young people don't have party loyalty, and a lot of these people are "independents."  And if they really believe in the "cause" instead of a "party line" then they'll vote 3rd party before they vote Hillary.  I really believe that.

The funny thing is that these two candidates are so historically awful that I'm not sure either party is going to be able to steal many of the other side's people.  Republicans might hate Trump, but they aren't gonna vote for Hillary.  And Democrats might hate Hillary, but they aren't voting for Trump.

At the end of the day, I bet we get historically low voter turnout because people don't want to vote for either of these guys.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Low turnout usually comes when people don't care about the candidates.  That's not the case here.  The lowest turnout ever was in 1996, when the race wasn't close between a reasonably well liked incumbent and a has been challenger who excited no one.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, I just don't know if there are enough people who are going to go out and vote *against* someone.  I don't know if you can rally up support *against* a candidate.  No one loves Hillary.  And I'm not sure the people who love Trump are going to flock to vote for him.  People might hate Hillary and/or Trump, but I don't think that means people will go out and vote for the other guy so they won't win.

I think most people assume Hillary will crush Trump.  So if you're a Trump hater, why would you bother going out and voting for someone you don't really like.  Other people will do that for you.  Your vote doesn't really matter, you don't really support the person you'd vote for, and other people will beat him for you.  I think that's the mentality you'll see out of most Democrats.

It's like sports.  I might hate some team like the Philadelphia Eagles.  I might want them to lose every game they play.  I might tell myself that the world would be a horrible place if the Eagles ever won the Super Bowl.  But if the Eagles are playing, say, the Jaguars (a team I don't care about at all), I'm not going to pay to watch.  Or even watch for free.  Because, at the end of the day, I don't care if the Jaguars win.  I'll just check my phone later that night to see if the Eagles lost.

That's how I think this election will go.  Few people will hate Trump enough to vote for Hillary and vice versa.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I've noticed that everyone has been quiet about politics around here lately... Is that because there's nothing to say? Or is everyone like me, driven completely insane by the news and internet over the past few days, to the point where if I started to say something I would end up writing a long rant with a lot of bad words?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Once it became Trump and Hillary, the whole process became no fun.  They're both so awful.  I don't have any more words for it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I was watching the last Hunger Games movie the other night (speaking of awful) and I realized that it was the same situation. Snow or Coin... both were corrupt, horrible leaders. It was like watching a movie about Trump and Hillary. Which is which? I have no idea.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This is the lull period in the election cycle.  It won't pick back up in earnest until around Labor Day.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

To fill the gap, on Mondays watch Brain Dead on CBS.  I watched the pilot this past week, and was shocked that it's actually a sci-fi show; I had thought it would be just another Good Wife type show.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm hoping for some surprises around the conventions.


Please let there be some surprises around the conventions. PLEASE!!!!!


I've heard of Brain Dead, but I usually skip CBS. Their shows usually bore me, and on the rare occasion when they haven't, the shows have been quickly canceled. But since it's summer, I might check it out. There's another one coming up called American Gothic which I've been considering.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I mean unless Hillary gets indicted (and there's been so little movement on that front that I wonder if that's dead) I don't really know what surprises there could be.

Now considering the high impeachability of these two candidates, I think the VP selections will be interesting.  If I'm Paul Ryan, I'm getting my guy in there and calling for impeachment at the first chance (so February, I assume).  It'd be the strongest bi-partisanship ever, and Ryan would get who he wants in the Oval Office.

It might be interesting if Hillary goes with Elizabeth Warren.  So if the first woman ever elected is forced to resign quickly into her first term, at least women would get an immediate second chance.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The nightmare for the GOP is a clean sweep (House, Senate, White House).  House probably not happening, but this is a blue-heavy Senate map, unlike 2014 or 2018, and losing the Senate is a likelihood.  Especially if Trump drags the ballot down with him, another likelihood.  At which point, refusing to consider "moderate" Judge Garland could be a complete disaster.  Hillary would be able to nominate (should she choose) an overt left-leaning jurist, and the right would be completely powerless to stop her.  A simple majority confirms. 

SQ, she's not picking Sen. Warren as a running mate.  I can't imagine the two of them ever getting along well enough for that.  It's going to be a Tim Kane-type, someone with a strong history in Democratic party politics.  Running mate makes next to no difference in how people vote nowadays, unless you choose a bad one. 

Info, I don't expect surprises.  I think the Republicans are stuck with Trump.  If he backs out now, he'll be looked at as the clown of the century (if not already).  I think he'll eventually tone down the nonsense, and a neutered Trump is really an ineffective and boring Trump.  He'll go out with a whimper, and save whatever brand viability he has left.  The damage this fool has done to his own brand worldwide is simply incredulous.  This is how he earns a living, heck how his immediate family does as well.  His golf course already lost a PGA event ironically to Mexico of all places, as buildings and hotels with his name on it are being quietly boycotted.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I refuse to give up hope! Don't take my dreams away from me!

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

145 (edited by Grizzlor 2016-06-19 21:55:24)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I refuse to give up hope! Don't take my dreams away from me!

Are you kidding, every employee of a cable news organization, and 90% of comedians are praying for mayhem, and most of them are atheists!  Not gonna happen, to quote Dana Carvey.  Trump's campaign is probably going to be broke by Cleveland anyway, because he won't take the RNC's money.  They refuse to use data modeling, they think his dumb tweets and crazy speeches will propel them home.  No chance.  The last and perhaps only successful "populist" candidate was Andrew Jackson, 200 years ago.  In other words, he needs them, or he'll be bankrupt himself for like the 6th time.

Anything short of a complete withdrawal by The Donald would mean an open revolt at the convention.  Sure the vast majority of actual delegates are still firmly in the RNC's corner, they are not Trumpites.  But to deny him on the grounds that he'll lose, that's a step I can't imagine they have the balls to pull off.  Trump and his supporters and voters would flip out.  He'd spend every minute from then until November telling his voters who to vote against in the fall. 

The GOP created this mess, now they're drowning in it.  They conditioned their voters with 24/7 Fox-fed bombast about how everything that happens in Washington is crooked and corrupt.  That everyone who works as a Federal employee is on the dole and doesn't actually DO anything productive.  The Trumpster has watched this, he's heard this, and he wisely calculated that if I portray myself as the 21st Century Archie Bunker he would ride that wave like he was on easy street.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is willing to take the RNC's money.  They've established joint fund raising committees.  He gave up his self funding pledge as soon as he clinched the nomination.  Problem is that many of the standard GOP donors won't give for him.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't buy the doomsday scenario for the Republicans.  I think the big people are waiting on the FBI indictment stuff.  I think they're holding out hope that she gets defeated by them because I think they'd be more okay with a Sanders or Biden presidency.

Once Hillary clears the FBI hurdle, the Republicans will bend over backwards to support Trump.  They hate her.  H. A. T. E.  And once she's out there enough, the cavalry will show up.  Maybe they'll donate to the RNC as a way to save face, but they're not going to just sit back and let Hillary Clinton waltz into the White House.

And even if they do, I don't buy that Trump will make down-ballot candidates win.  The big Republican donors will donate money to someone.  If they're not donating to Trump, then it'll mean more money to Senatorial candidates in swing states.  If they're willing to let the presidency go away, then they'll make sure they get as many Senate votes as possible.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

They can donate all they want, but the rub is going to be clear.  If Trump continues to behave in this manner, he'll tick off independent voters, who will shy away from the GOP line.  If he fades badly and there's no chance of victory, Republicans will stay home. 

Even worse, apparently the list of GOP headliners willing to speak in Cleveland is VERY short.  This is really the worst news of all for The Donald.  How can you captivate the public for several days when no one is going to speak???  Having Sarah Palin during prime time is not going to cut it. 

There's over 4 months to go, but John McCain was sunk the moment he looked pretty foolish trying to dictate the Federal response to the 2008 financial crisis.  Obama urged patience, not to mention that he recognized neither of them were yet elected President and allowed GWB to do his job.  That was one moment.  Trump has had several of these in the last couple weeks alone.  He tweets on every major crisis, giving his well thought musings, probably while dropping a deuce.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is already fading.  The latest ABC poll has him down 12 points, and that's with the Bernie Bros still showing as undecided.  This could be a blowout so bad it would make Alf Landon blush.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Again, if Donald is going to be the disaster we all assume he's going to be, then the Republicans will probably do very well in congressional elections because they're going to get all the money usually earmarked for the presidency.  And Republicans will realize that if they can't win the White House, they should at least make it as hard for Hillary as possible.  Winning both houses of Congress is the best way to make that happen.

What's funny is that Hillary has now spent weeks talking only about Donald Trump.  She's completely stopped talking about herself.  Probably because there's virtually nothing to talk about that would be positive.  And she has so many jokes in her speeches that it seems more like she's running to join the cast of Saturday Night Live.

At the very least, this election is going to make the world forget how bad the British people look.  So our friends across the pond will appreciate that.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I will add my recent thought on global politics:

I want Captain America to get a new partner named Brexit.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So despite finding that Hillary's server was a breach of security and exposed classified information to hacking from enemies, they're recommending no action be taken against her. Because what reasonable person would know such things?

Then again, her husband raped a bunch of women and skipped off into the sunset, so who is surprised? They are above the laws of normal human beings.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

153 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-07-05 16:12:47)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I love how excited Hillary supporters are.  The head of the FBI called her actions "extremely careless" and explained exactly how she'd lied to the public about what really happened.  She didn't ask for permission, she didn't hand over all her emails, and a lot of the emails were classified at the time.  And they're celebrating because their candidate won't be going to jail.

Hillary's only excuse now is that she was utterly incompetent.  And she's probably gonna be president.  It's unspeakable.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It was strange. He outlined a whole case against her which seemed so tight that I was starting to think that he might recommend indictment... and then he took a sharp turn in the opposite direction. His speech made no sense. And not only that, the idea that they've never pursued anyone in a similar situation has already been shot down all over the internet.

I'm sure that they pulled their Clinton strings again, threatening to murder anyone in their way. It's how they roll.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Hillary's only excuse now is that she was utterly incompetent.  And she's probably gonna be president.  It's unspeakable.


Yeah, because as bad as she is the Republicans have nominated someone even worse

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wouldn't say "worse" really. I mean, if he has a body count on his resume, it is less well known than Hillary's.

They're both horrible, but in their own special ways.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

157 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-07-05 22:51:13)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Yeah, because as bad as she is the Republicans have nominated someone even worse

Which is unspeakable in its own right.  This should be the easiest race.  She's unlikeable, she's seen as universally untrustworthy, and the FBI called her incompetent at the only job she's supposedly done well at her entire career.  And she's gonna win because the Republicans essentially forfeited.  It's driving me nuts.

In other news, Obama once again called her the most qualified candidate in history.  I'm stunned that he's tying himself to her at this level.  He doesn't have to do this.  And it's making me respect him so very little.

She was a lawyer.  Then she married Bill Clinton.  His name got her a job as a NY senator where she accomplished nothing.  Then she lost a presidential bid to a no-name congressman.  Then she was an incompetent Secretary of State.  Where are the qualifications?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yesterday Trump was praising Saddam Hussein as a great leader based on the number of people he killed.  That's much worse than Hillary Clinton participating in the routine deceit that all elected officials engage in.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This wasn't really routine. This was pretty big. And again, it is only one of a long list of crimes committed by the Clintons. Rape and murder aren't routine.

I'm not defending Trump. Please don't connect my comments about Hillary to any sort of Trump support.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is the world's biggest idiot.  Yesterday should've been all about condemning Hillary, and he found a way to make it about another idiotic thing he said.

If you listen to Hillary speak, she's completely stopped talking about herself.  She doesn't have to.  She could've been fully indicted and would've still been able to win against him because he'd find a way to screw it up.

What's funny is that I think the point Trump was trying to make (that we can't keep taking out dictators with no plan afterwards like we did with Saddam, Gaddafi, and how Hillary will handle Syria and not expect the continued rise of terrorism) is actually valid.  Praising Saddam is probably the worst way to carry that point across.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Hillary was the brains behind Libya, and that was a disaster.  Now she's going to be the brains behind toppling the regime in Syria.  It's going to go just as well.  When you destabilize a place, even if it means getting rid of a monster, then people are going to cling to something that makes them feel safe.  For many in the Middle East, that's ISIS.

162 (edited by chaser9 2016-07-06 15:59:54)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Our best hope is a freak accident at the debate takes out both of them.

Or building a portal to a parallel universe.

Hmmmmmm. Excuse me, I need to look over these equations one more time.

--Chaser9

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

chaser9 wrote:

Our best hope is a freak accident at the debate takes out both of them.

I definitely don't want anyone to get hurt, but I did wonder what would happen if both were killed at a debate.  Would the election be suspended until new candidates can be chosen and campaign?  Would both VP candidates become the nominees and choose their own VP candidates?  I honestly have no idea.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I mean... they don't have to be hurt. There could be a hack of some sort that exposes the full evidence of crimes committed by them... which really only works in movies, I guess. In real life, undeniable proof of crimes would mean nothing.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah I'm just curious if we'd get Biden vs. Ryan (since they're the most known of the non-candidates) or if we'd get, say, Newt vs. Warren. 

In other news, another terrible day for Hillary.  Comey all but said she was too dumb to understand the difference between something that was classified and something that isn't.  I know people love her because she's not Trump, but that honestly seems to be the only reason to vote for her.  I almost think the Republicans would be better off doing something drastic at the convention and let the Trump people freak out.  I think pretty much anyone but Donald would be able to beat her.  I know the polling doesn't really show that, but if Trump isn't there to distract from her, I think her candidacy falls apart.  The Trump people would freak out, but they'd come around.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't know if the Trump supporters would come around or not.  He might have a proxy run as a small party candidate, which would accomplish the same thing as him being the Republican nominee.  Plus they'd be throwing out every shred of legitimacy the primary process has.  How will they be able to justify all the tax dollars spent on primaries that don't mean anything?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

There is still a chance that the delegates will rally behind Cruz. The rules allow for these things to happen, so technically it's all part of the process. I'm not sure how people would react to that. Trump's supporters would probably freak out, but that doesn't mean that the election would be lost. A lot of people hate Hillary. Even democrats. Those people would probably vote for a reasonable candidate before her, even if they don't agree with his beliefs.

Meanwhile, a lot of conservatives won't vote for Trump anyway. The idea that we're all supposed to get excited about him because he has an R next to his name is absurd. We've tried that in the past, and it failed. Now we have a loon running, who does not represent our beliefs as much as he represents his own self interests, and we're supposed to support him just because.

Right now, the election is lose/lose. If some last minute play by delegates pulls Trump out of the running and puts someone like Cruz in his place, the whole game will change. Delegates are working to change the rules. This could be seen as betrayal by voters, but even if those Trump supporters hate the delegates, would they necessarily hate the candidate? I think it would depend on who was put in.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If they put in someone that Trump just beat in the primaries, then the GOP rank and file are likely to react very badly.  The result might well be worse than letting Trump lose.  It will be yet another sign that the Republican party insiders are out of touch with their own voters.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Maybe. But I really don't think that it would be worse than letting Trump lose. Letting Trump lose means Hillary in the White House. There is much worse than you can get than her.

It would cause a stir, sure. But there is a significant number of republican voters who don't support Trump, and who would cheer at his being booted. If the threat is that they would lose a chunk of the voters in order to run with this gamble, they have nothing to lose by doing it. They're going to lose a lot of voters by having Trump running. I'm not going to sign my name to a candidate because they tell me to. If Trump gets the nomination, they have a few months to convince me that it's worth swallowing a bucket of broken glass, just to keep Hillary out of office... and I might prefer drinking broken glass to Donald Trump.

I know me some conservatives, and I don't know many Trump supporters. It seems like he's doing what Obama did, which is energizing a group of people who like flash and show, but who aren't normally out there paying attention. Would those be the voters that the republicans are out of touch with?

It would be messy, sure. But it's going to be messy anyway at this point. If they put the right person in, they could pull it off. Paul Ryan would not be that person. Rubio would not be that person. Jeb would not be that person. Christie would not be that person. But Cruz? He's not like the others. They might be able to pull it off with him.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't know.  Whenever I talk to anyone about why they're voting for Hillary, every single person says "because she's not Trump."  So if you give the people an alternative to Hillary, that person could win.  I still think there are circumstances where Bernie could win if he was able to get on ballots in all 50 states. 

They've basically found the two worst people in the country to run for president.  So almost anyone should hopefully be able to beat them both.  Since Hillary's speeches are exclusively about how dangerous Trump is and she refuses to talk about her record anymore (since it's a disaster), I don't even know how Hillary would be able to campaign against Cruz or Ryan or whoever the Republicans pick.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I'm not going to sign my name to a candidate because they tell me to. If Trump gets the nomination, they have a few months to convince me that it's worth swallowing a bucket of broken glass, just to keep Hillary out of office...

I feel that's what the Republican Party has been asking their constituents to do for decades (ever since Bush the elder).  I haven't felt them say "vote for me"; it's just "do you really want that other guy?"  Once he got beyond Hillary, that is where Obama succeeded in his first general election; the thrust was about voting for hope and change instead of the emphasis being against his opponent.  I do think Obama's hope and change line was bunk, but it was a positive message and worked.

Hillary in office won't feel much different than a 3rd term of Obama. If you're okay with the country's trajectory, then just keep riding it.  I do think Trump will be different; he already has been.  Is that better?  I don't know.  He's made a large number of mistakes (both in the election and his life), but I don't think he's the monster that the media (and his blundering) has made him out to be.

If you're worried about the world going to hell under him, then you don't realize just how bad we're already going to hell.  The Democrats and Republicans aren't going to be able to use business as usual to hold it together forever; and working with law enforcement, I can tell you unequivocally that since January violent crime in my area has spiked to levels I haven't seen since Hurricane Katrina.  The resurgence is not because of Trump; the largest contributing factor seems to be this Black Lives Matter business that has emboldened the criminal elements.  They know law enforcement is being rendered toothless by politics; there is no fear of repercussions.  It's been going that way for decades, but now it's dropped off a cliff.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree. The problem with Trump is, his views change from year to year and minute to minute. He supports abortion, but he doesn't support abortion. He's liberal, but he's conservative. All of his sneaky, underhanded, slimy tactics would work in our favor if he actually believes half of what he says, but how much of it is real and how much of it is just saying whatever he has to in order to get elected?

If he were a crazed lunatic who secured the border, did away with abortion, lowered the taxed, got rid of Obamacare, built up our military, and put an end to the paranoia that is building into a literal race war in our streets, then he'd be a swell crazed lunatic. But if he's a wild card. We know he's crazy. We just don't know which flavor of crazy he is. It's Russian roulette. I know that if Hillary gets elected, we get the bullet. If Trump gets elected, it could go either way.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Did you guys hear the crazy NYT story about Trump (which I admit I'm too lazy to look up right now)?  Word is that he's considering quitting early if the polls don't get better later in the election cycle because he wouldn't be able to take the embarrassment of actually losing the election (presumably because he thinks quitting is better than losing - something he'd presumably blame on a rigged system).

(Which would certainly play into the fact that Trump is simply a Clinton puppet sleeper agent designed to destroy the Republican party enough that Hillary can win but that's neither here nor there).

The crazier thing was that they asked him about quitting if he *won* and he didn't discount it.  That plays into the theory that Trump wants no business being president and just wants to win.  I could see that (or quitting a few months into the job when he sees how hard it is) and then it'd be a matter of whether or not you trust whoever Trump picks as a VP.  Which is funny because, as I've said, I'd trust just about anyone over these two.

What's interesting is that it could be the best of all worlds.  #NeverTrump Republicans would get to vote for him knowing he'd never take office.  Trump people would vote for it either assuming he'd never quit or not knowing about it at all.  If the Trump campaign was sophisticated at all, they could target #NeverTrump and try to get a few of them in key states to understand that the guy might never do anything in office.  They aren't so it won't matter, and the idea of him quitting might actually scare off his base.

It is an interesting thought, though.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

According to rumors, that could leave us with President Christie.

**shudders**

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm surprised Trump wants Cruz to speak at the convention; nobody must have reminded him of Pat Buchanan's speech at Bush's convention in 1992.  In that speech, Buchanan went off Bush's middle of the road message and pushed hard on social conservatism.  Historians tend to partly blame that for why Bush lost to Clinton.

Today those kinds of speeches don't seem to mean as much, but it's pretty nutty to believe Cruz is ever going to do Trump any favors.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I heard that the delegates wanted Cruz to speak. It may not have been Trump's choice. Cruz hasn't backed Trump, and isn't likely to, after what Trump said about Cruz's wife.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

If you're worried about the world going to hell under him, then you don't realize just how bad we're already going to hell.  The Democrats and Republicans aren't going to be able to use business as usual to hold it together forever; and working with law enforcement, I can tell you unequivocally that since January violent crime in my area has spiked to levels I haven't seen since Hurricane Katrina.  The resurgence is not because of Trump; the largest contributing factor seems to be this Black Lives Matter business that has emboldened the criminal elements.  They know law enforcement is being rendered toothless by politics; there is no fear of repercussions.  It's been going that way for decades, but now it's dropped off a cliff.

It's a crying shame that the cops have to be a little more circumspect about just shooting the uppity black folks.  "No fear of repercussions" is what's led to the many, many deaths of unarmed black people at the hands of over-aggressive cops.

In any event, violent crime rates in the US are at historically low levels, even below the Leave It To Beaver 1950's.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The number of unjustified shootings has been blown up in the press. Looking at the actual facts of many of these cases which have people rioting in the street shows that a lot of these shootings were justified.

Sorry, but black or white (and yes, white people have been killed too. It's just that nobody cares), people need to respect the police, not get in their faces and refuse to comply because they feel justified in being asses. A simple traffic stop is life and death for cops. When someone threatens their safety, they are justified in shooting. Hell, if someone threatened my safety, I would shoot them too.

And "unarmed" means nothing. People can cause severe bodily harm without a gun. I'm no George Zimmerman fan, but if someone slammed my head into cement repeatedly, I wouldn't feel bad about shooting them either.

Also, not all of these were unarmed suspects.

I absolutely do not support every shooting by every cop. But people have been mixing justified shootings in with unjustified shootings, and picking and choosing which details to report and which not to. The incredible lack of investigation and education in these stories directly led to the shooting in Dallas. The building of such a toxic environment (mostly for political gain) made this man feel justified in shooting white people and cops. That is unacceptable, and directly linked to the messages put out by leaders in this country. When they react to violence, riots and looting with understanding and support, they add to the "us vs. them" mentality.

And they usually do it before any investigation, and with no knowledge of the situation beyond Twitter hashtags. It benefits them, so they don't care. It is disgusting. And it is disturbing that when you suggest that people get facts before they riot, they assume that you're racist. Since when is information racist?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

It's a crying shame that the cops have to be a little more circumspect about just shooting the uppity black folks.  "No fear of repercussions" is what's led to the many, many deaths of unarmed black people at the hands of over-aggressive cops.

I just hope that you're prepared to shoot someone to save your own life or someone you love, because one day you may not have the police to come do your dirty work when you scream for help.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:
pilight wrote:

It's a crying shame that the cops have to be a little more circumspect about just shooting the uppity black folks.  "No fear of repercussions" is what's led to the many, many deaths of unarmed black people at the hands of over-aggressive cops.

I just hope that you're prepared to shoot someone to save your own life or someone you love, because one day you may not have the police to come do your dirty work when you scream for help.

You say that as if they'd be there in time to do something other than fill out paperwork now.  How privileged you are that your encounters with cops have been positive.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

And "unarmed" means nothing. People can cause severe bodily harm without a gun. I'm no George Zimmerman fan, but if someone slammed my head into cement repeatedly, I wouldn't feel bad about shooting them either.

That's a pretty good example of the problem.  If George Zimmerman didn't want to get his ass kicked he shouldn't have confronted the random stranger in the middle of the night.  Cops do the same thing, they escalate situations then claim self defense when the person fights back.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Actually, you just highlighted the problem perfectly. Lack of information, and quick outrage.

All evidence suggests that Zimmerman didn't confront Martin. Martin had a clear path back home, but circled back and confronted Zimmerman, physically assaulting him before Zimmerman shot him. The shooting was justified.

Sorry, but seeing a suspicious person (and by that, mean that he fit the description of someone who had been committing crimes in the neighborhood, not that he was suspicious because he was black) and following them to see where they go is not a crime. It is not grounds for taking someone's life.

To put it clearly, I can't shoot someone for walking on the sidewalk behind me. I can shoot them if they are slamming my head into cement repeatedly.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Zimmerman was in his car when he spotted Martin.  If he hadn't gotten out to cause trouble, he would have never been in a position to get beat up like that.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Was Zimmerman legally allowed to get out of his car? It is as simple as that.

What you're saying is that because Martin was a thug, Zimmerman's rights no longer apply.


The fact is that George Zimmerman (a member of the neighborhood watch) spotted a suspicious person, walking not on the sidewalk, but close to the houses and looking into windows. He called 911 and reported this person (don't know about you, but I don't typically call 911 before I intend to make trouble). He followed Martin at a distance (not confronting him, as you say) to see where he was going. He apparently even walked up to the next street to get an address for the 911 operator. After that, he was told that he didn't have to follow the suspect and he apparently turned around.
During all of this time, Martin had a clear path home and the time to get there. He wasn't being chased or threatened.

After Zimmerman turned around, Martin assaulted him. That means that Martin turned around, pursued Zimmerman and physically endangered his life.

Your entire argument is crap. You're saying that because you're on Martin's side, Zimmerman's rights didn't apply. You say that Zimmerman had no right to follow someone suspicious, yet Martin had the right to kill someone that he thought was suspicious (and this is a clear distinction. Zimmerman did not assault Martin or threaten his life. Martin threatened Zimmerman's life in no uncertain terms).

What you're saying is that the law didn't apply to Martin because... he was black and the rules applying to him wouldn't fit your narrative?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Was Zimmerman legally allowed to get out of his car? It is as simple as that.

What you're saying is that because Martin was a thug, Zimmerman's rights no longer apply.


The fact is that George Zimmerman (a member of the neighborhood watch) spotted a suspicious person, walking not on the sidewalk, but close to the houses and looking into windows. He called 911 and reported this person (don't know about you, but I don't typically call 911 before I intend to make trouble). He followed Martin at a distance (not confronting him, as you say) to see where he was going. He apparently even walked up to the next street to get an address for the 911 operator. After that, he was told that he didn't have to follow the suspect and he apparently turned around.
During all of this time, Martin had a clear path home and the time to get there. He wasn't being chased or threatened.

After Zimmerman turned around, Martin assaulted him. That means that Martin turned around, pursued Zimmerman and physically endangered his life.

Your entire argument is crap. You're saying that because you're on Martin's side, Zimmerman's rights didn't apply. You say that Zimmerman had no right to follow someone suspicious, yet Martin had the right to kill someone that he thought was suspicious (and this is a clear distinction. Zimmerman did not assault Martin or threaten his life. Martin threatened Zimmerman's life in no uncertain terms).

What you're saying is that the law didn't apply to Martin because... he was black and the rules applying to him wouldn't fit your narrative?

No, I'm saying I don't take Zimmerman at his word like you do.  Only two people know what happened between them and one of them is dead.  Zimmerman had every reason to make Martin seem like the aggressor, and himself as acting in self defense.  He wanted to avoid prison, and the jury bought it.  I have a very hard time believing someone in a neighborhood watch doesn't know the address of the neighborhood he's watching.  Only one of the two had a criminal record, and it wasn't Martin.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The truth is that there is no truth we can reach. George Zimmerman was and remains a deranged, abusive thug with a lengthy history of domestic violence. Trayvon Martin was most definitely a thug with a history of violent behaviour. We don't know who threatened to kill whom and Zimmerman's account most definitely cannot be trusted given the long list of incidents in his life, but we also can't declare that the opposite of Zimmerman's story is therefore the truth. We don't have any facts.

What is certain is that Zimmerman stopped Martin, Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him -- followed by a series of events that led to Martin dead on the ground. It is possible that Zimmerman belittled and attacked Martin and then shot him dead; it is possible that Martin responded to an inappropriate (but not illegal) question by attacking Zimmerman and then shot him. The fact that Martin was a low-level drug dealer and a thug doesn't change the fact, however, that he was unarmed and simply walking the streets and that Zimmerman targeted him, followed him and instigated whatever led to the outcome. The fact that Martin was not the second coming of Jesus does not justify shooting him. Zimmerman was acquitted because there simply wasn't enough evidence to say one way or another if it was self-defense or not and the absence of evidence required that the jury declare him innocent.

Zimmerman has proceeded to continue his life in which he's assaulted and threatened his girlfriends but, admittedly, also saved someone from a car wreck. He is an appalling human being, but whether he murdered Martin or not isn't something we'll ever know.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Actually, Martin had been suspended from school for possession of marijuana and of stolen property. So he had a history.


Regardless, the difference between you and me is that you believe what you believe regardless of facts and information. I approached the situation with an open mind, listened to all of the 911 calls, read the reports, listened to the witnesses, looked at the maps of the area, looked at Zimmerman's injuries and how Martin was shot, and based on all of the information available, I came to an educated conclusion. You don't care about any of the actual facts. You will fight to the end to believe what you already believed going into this story, which is an opinion most likely based on catchy headlines and mangled news reports.

I never took anyone at their word. You did.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What is certain is that Zimmerman stopped Martin, Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him -- followed by a series of events that led to Martin dead on the ground.

There is actually no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman confronted Martin. We have Zimmerman's 911 call, which suggests that he wasn't approaching Martin or planning to confront him. After that ends, we have a witness who described who was on top of whom during the fight, delivering blows. The witness described Zimmerman screaming for help during the fight.

The fact that Martin was a low-level drug dealer and a thug doesn't change the fact, however, that he was unarmed and simply walking the streets and that Zimmerman targeted him, followed him and instigated whatever led to the outcome.

Given the situation, what should Zimmerman have done differently? Following a series of burglaries in the neighborhood, he spotted someone who fit the description of the suspect, acting strangely and looking at/into houses as he went along. He called 911 and had a pretty rational conversation with the operator. He didn't act as though he was out of his mind or planning to do anything drastic during that conversation.

So if you were walking through your neighborhood and saw someone acting strangely around the homes of other people, would you call the police? I don't think that qualifies as instigating. It doesn't justify Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman delivering blow after blow (according to a witness, who described the tactic as "ground and pound"). At that point, Zimmerman has a reasonable fear for his life, which justifies a shooting. I've had training in what is justified and what isn't, and based on all of the available information, this seems pretty justified. It wasn't just a lack of evidence, it was the sum of the evidence available.


Again, I don't like Zimmerman. I think he's a douchebag. But the fact that I don't personally like him doesn't mean that he's guilty of stalking a kid and killing him. Martin was shot at very close range, after Zimmerman had sustained injuries. If Zimmerman had been hunting the kid down, his gun would have been drawn the whole time and he probably would have fired before he had the crap beaten out of him.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Actually, Martin had been suspended from school for possession of marijuana and of stolen property. So he had a history.

That's a far cry from a history of violent confrontation resulting in mandated anger management classes, like Zimmerman had.  A school suspension is not a criminal record in any event.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The city had a program to keep kids out of jail by trying to deal with these things through the school system. The kid had a history.


Okay, so let's say that both of them had pasts. Cool. How does that change any of the evidence in this case?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

FWIW, I never said Zimmerman stalked the kid.  I don't think he ever intended for it to go down the way it did.  My guess as to what happened is that Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin, emboldened by his gun and the knowledge that cops will virtually always take the word of a white dude over that of a black kid.  Martin responded by getting pissed off and whaling on Zimmerman.  Having gotten in over his head, Zimmerman pulled his weapon and fired.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Two questions:

1. What evidence is that conclusion based on?

2. Does anyone else think that we either need to do away with racial classifications or clarify these classifications? Half the time, Hispanic/Latinos are considered white and half the time they're considered "brown". Zimmerman is genetically of mixed races, but is usually just referred to as "white". Is that because it's easier to make this into a racial crime/hate crime if he's just "white"? I mean, Zimmerman isn't exactly a pale blond guy.

I don't think that race has anything to do with it. Say we're playing into the hick stereotypes of the cops here (which we are apparently doing), they're going to pull up to that scene and see a black kid and a Mexican. Since these cops are so racist, they're not going to think "Wow, that Mexican just saved the day!", they're going to think "Gang war!"


And I know that Zimmerman isn't Mexican. I'm not the racist one here. The imaginary cops are. I hate racist imaginary cops. They're the worst. They make all other imaginary cops look bad.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, just to jump in here.  As a native of Dallas, this week has been pretty crazy.  I watched the Alton Sterling videos and basically watched the Philandro Castile shooting live (I happened to be on Twitter when everyone was posting the Facebook live video).  And people grouped it together because it was cops shooting black people, but I found the situations to be wildly different.

- The Sterling one looks the worst because he didn't seem to be resisting arrest - he was just a huge guy who didn't want to be thrown to the ground.  The video makes it look bad but there's a couple different things about the story that can change the narrative a bit.  I haven't heard confirmation but I've heard that "Gun!  He's got a gun!" is one cop and the one that shot was the other.  In that case, it's a horrible mistake but the shooting makes sense.  It's a guy protecting his partner.  The shooter was misled but thinks he's saving a life.  Even in that case, he shot him way too many times (and whoever shot "Gun!" was incorrect).  Both should be prosecuted IMO and let the courts decide.

- The Castile one is another example of a cop making a mistake.  Castile definitely shouldn't have been shot, and the cop who shot him *knew it*.  If you watch the video, he yells "FUCK!" a ton.  He knew he made a mistake, and he knew it was going to ruin his life.  Doesn't justify it, but it definitely doesn't mean he went out that night to gun down black people.  Castile told him he had a gun and reached for his ID.  Something in the cop's mind misinterpreted it and he made a mistake.  Just like people make a mistake when they accidentally kill someone with a car or any other weapon.  Again, he should be prosecuted and the courts should decide how guilty he is of a crime.

They're very different scenarios but have two key things in common.  In both instances, a black man died because of a mistake by the police, but in both cases the mistake makes sense in the moment.  So to me it's more of a situation of unprepared police making awful, horrible mistakes.  Instead, the media paints it as "black people are being hunted by the police" which isn't the case in either situation.

But I monitored the situation on social media, and many upset black people were saying that the police were at war with black people.  "Leaders" in the black community (not all actual leaders, just people with big voices) implied that was the case.  And I saw many people on Twitter saying that someone needs to do something.  And when you convince people that there's a war on the police, Dallas happens.

What's stupid about the Dallas situation is:

1. Dallas PD had nothing to do with any of the shootings, and has been regarded by black leaders (actual leaders) as being one of the exemplary departments in the country.  DPD has been involved in BLM protests, both helping to plan and helping to protect protests.

2. There are an insane number of people on social media calling Micah Johnson a hero.  Even though he put future black lives in danger no matter what you think the police agenda is.  If you think police are at war with black people, then now they are going to be even more trigger happy.  And if you think police are good people doing a scary job, then their job is now that much scarier.  And people make mistakes when they're scared.

The whole thing is a disaster, and I'm a little upset that black leaders (including Obama) aren't doing more to try and fight the anger in the black community.  That's not to say they shouldn't be angry or scared - that's completely justified.  But when people are calling a mass murderer a hero, you're emboldening future mass murderers.  And while I've seen tons of black people calling out the idiots that are calling him a hero, I'm not seeing enough of it.

I think the primary problem with BLM is that there's no central leadership.  No one is able to speak for Black Lives Matter.  And so no one can speak *to* Black Lives Matter.  If there was a leader, he/she could condemn the shootings and preach peace.  And maybe that would calm people down. 

Because people used to wait until cops were cleared of charges before they rioted/protested (Rodney King, Ferguson, etc).  Now, there's no wait.  Someone dies and riots/protests happen.  The system needs to change, but shouldn't we wait to see if the system changed?  Shouldn't we see if the cops in Louisiana and Minnesota get charged?  And if they're charged with murder (whether they're found guilty or not), doesn't that mean the system changed?  Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction?

I believe there needs to be less shootings of black men by the police, but I understand that being a policeman is a can't-win job that is crazy dangerous.  And that any decision they make can and sometimes does result in the loss of a life.  I both sympathize with BLM and back the blue.

And I don't understand why those two things are mutually exclusive for so many people.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

What is certain is that Zimmerman stopped Martin, Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him -- followed by a series of events that led to Martin dead on the ground.

There is actually no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman confronted Martin. [...] Given the situation, what should Zimmerman have done differently? [...] So if you were walking through your neighborhood and saw someone acting strangely around the homes of other people, would you call the police? I don't think that qualifies as instigating.

According to the girl that Martin called before Zimmerman killed him, she overheard the start of the exchange between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin noticed Zimmerman following him and Zimmerman was close enough that Martin could ask him, "What are you following me for?" at which point Zimmerman demanded, "What are you doing around here?" Which means that Zimmerman wasn't observing at a distance; he got up close, he wanted a confrontation. You make it seem like all Zimmerman did was call the police as opposed to what he did, which was call the police and then pursue Martin because Zimmerman fancied himself a police officer.

And I would not call the police because I would not find it strange for an unfamiliar black teenager to be walking through the streets, even recently burglarized streets, because being unknown to me and being black are not characteristics that threaten me. The fact that Martin was high on marijuana is also not frightening to me as being high and being a teenager aren't exactly unusual circumstances and plenty of teenagers get high without breaking and entering, nor would I be bothered to call the police just because of someone's personal lifestyle decisions. I would call the police if someone were levering front doors and windows open with a crowbar.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

They're very different scenarios but have two key things in common.  In both instances, a black man died because of a mistake by the police, but in both cases the mistake makes sense in the moment.  So to me it's more of a situation of unprepared police making awful, horrible mistakes.  Instead, the media paints it as "black people are being hunted by the police" which isn't the case in either situation.

But I monitored the situation on social media, and many upset black people were saying that the police were at war with black people.  "Leaders" in the black community (not all actual leaders, just people with big voices) implied that was the case.  And I saw many people on Twitter saying that someone needs to do something.  And when you convince people that there's a war on the police, Dallas happens.


I haven't had time to do enough looking into the most recent cases and research every angle, so I can't really form an informed opinion about either case. But I think that in these situations, people have been bunching them all together, as you say, and it's created a toxic and dangerous atmosphere. Justified shootings are being tallied with unjustified shootings. Shootings with racial components are being bunched with shootings without racial components. Some shootings (anyone with light skin) are ignored completely in the grand tally.

The fact is, every situation is different. There is no organized war on black people, otherwise this would be entire police departments littering the streets with bodies. That isn't the case. And it's dangerous to group every situation together. It's dangerous to schedule protests and fuel anger without having the facts and the details. If something is legitimately unjustified, I wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done. However, it takes work to figure these things out. Cops are held to the same laws as us, but they're not like us. We don't put our lives on the line every time we leave home in the morning. We're not asked to approach life threatening situations.

The will be justified shootings.
There will be unjustified shootings.
There will be mistakes.
There will be outright murders.

It is so important that we don't just read a headline and jump to conclusions based on emotional reactions.


2. There are an insane number of people on social media calling Micah Johnson a hero.  Even though he put future black lives in danger no matter what you think the police agenda is.  If you think police are at war with black people, then now they are going to be even more trigger happy.  And if you think police are good people doing a scary job, then their job is now that much scarier.  And people make mistakes when they're scared.

The whole thing is a disaster, and I'm a little upset that black leaders (including Obama) aren't doing more to try and fight the anger in the black community.  That's not to say they shouldn't be angry or scared - that's completely justified.  But when people are calling a mass murderer a hero, you're emboldening future mass murderers.  And while I've seen tons of black people calling out the idiots that are calling him a hero, I'm not seeing enough of it.

I think the primary problem with BLM is that there's no central leadership.  No one is able to speak for Black Lives Matter.  And so no one can speak *to* Black Lives Matter.  If there was a leader, he/she could condemn the shootings and preach peace.  And maybe that would calm people down.

A very real problem here is that the "leaders" that we're talking about are politicians and activists who make a living on fear and hostility. They aren't trying to keep level heads, because they benefit from paranoia. Keeping people divided makes them easier to control. Making people believe that it's "us" versus "them" keeps everyone in convenient little boxes. It makes sure that there is a "black vote" or a "female vote", even though the notion of all black people or all women thinking the same or believing the same is absurd.

President Obama could have easily helped to calm the emotions over the past few years. He could have pushed for level heads and for people to wait for information. He could have strongly condemned further violence and tried to quell the racial paranoia that has been steadily building into a literal war in the streets.

But he hasn't. Instead, he has talked out of both sides of his mouth. Supporting the outrage, but saying that he didn't support the violence (while really not *not* supporting the violence). He has done nothing to bring people together. He has only worked to keep emotions simmering, because it benefits politicians and activists is that division continues. I believe that there is leadership here, and I believe that they are getting exactly what they want from all of this. They don't care about bodies in the streets, they care about bodies in the voting booths.


And I don't understand why those two things are mutually exclusive for so many people.


Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Believing in justice isn't a crazy notion. It doesn't have to be a black vs. white thing. It doesn't have to be cops vs. citizens thing. There is no war between black people and police, there are instances of wrongdoing on both sides, but those instances do not represent a majority on either side. The environment that has been created here is making people more tense, more divided, and more likely to kill more people, both black civilians and police officers.





ireactions wrote:

According to the girl that Martin called before Zimmerman killed him, she overheard the start of the exchange between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin noticed Zimmerman following him and Zimmerman was close enough that Martin could ask him, "What are you following me for?" at which point Zimmerman demanded, "What are you doing around here?" Which means that Zimmerman wasn't observing at a distance; he got up close, he wanted a confrontation. You make it seem like all Zimmerman did was call the police as opposed to what he did, which was call the police and then pursue Martin because Zimmerman fancied himself a police officer.


There are a couple of problems here.

First, the girlfriend's testimony is destroyed by the fact that her story changed and she lied on the stand. Now, nobody knows what to believe or what not to believe from her.

But let's say that a version of her story is true. It doesn't invalidate what Zimmerman said at all, and it doesn't mean that Zimmerman suddenly decided to change his whole attitude after hanging up with the 911 operator and started fancying himself a cowboy.

The sidewalk where the confrontation took place is T-shaped, with no street (it's off the street, with houses lining the top and sides of a sidewalk). Trayvon was spotted by Zimmerman, apparently walking closer to the buildings than was normal, and looking around suspiciously. He called 911 and tried to provide information about where he was and where Martin was going. This was off the street, mind you. The directions got a little muddled, and Zimmerman was trying to keep an eye on where the then-suspect was headed and provide that information to the 911 operator.

You say that her overhearing this conversation between the two men means that Zimmerman was actually pursuing Martin closely. I disagree. The path leading to Martin's home branches off from the top of that T and heads downward in a straight line. He had a straight path to his home, where he could lock the door. He had a phone from which to call 911 for help. He had a lot of options that he didn't take.

The girlfriend doesn't say that she heard Zimmerman confront Martin, yelling "freeze!" like you see in the movies. She doesn't say that she heard Trayvon get hit. She says that she heard Trayvon start the conversation. So this would seem to support the scenario where Trayvon turns around to confront Zimmerman, doesn't it? I'm not sure how you're getting to the conclusion that this means that Zimmerman was in pursuit. Wouldn't the person who initiates contact be the person who presumably "wanted a confrontation"?


And I would not call the police because I would not find it strange for an unfamiliar black teenager to be walking through the streets, even recently burglarized streets, because being unknown to me and being black are not characteristics that threaten me. The fact that Martin was high on marijuana is also not frightening to me as being high and being a teenager aren't exactly unusual circumstances and plenty of teenagers get high without breaking and entering, nor would I be bothered to call the police just because of someone's personal lifestyle decisions. I would call the police if someone were levering front doors and windows open with a crowbar.

You're making this racial, and there's no evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race at all. In fact, the only time that there appears to be the possibility of racism involved here is when Martin reportedly referred to Zimmerman as a "cracker".

And the funny part about all of this is that while people discount the recent burglaries in the area, Martin had recently been suspended for possessing some of that stolen property. He apparently fit the description of the suspect there because he probably was the suspect there! (he was caught on camera in a restricted area of the school, I believe, and painting the letters WTF on a wall. When school officials searched his locker for the paint, they found the stolen items as well as a screwdriver. It was taken into police custody, but charges were never filed because of that program that I mentioned earlier, where they tried to reduce the crime rates by dealing with issues in the school)

Of course, this part wasn't reported on all of the news shows.

There is a blurring of lines here, where people are mistaking narrative for evidence. We can't do that. We have to use the facts that we have on hand, not what we're being told by Trayvons parents and their lawyers after the fact. There is no evidence of racial motivation. There is no evidence that Zimmerman pusued Martin, or that the gun was drawn until Zimmerman was on the ground having his head bashed in. Zimmerman says that he didn't go for the gun until Trayvon reached for it... There's nothing to disprove that, but you can discount it if you want.

The questions are these:

Discounting all of what Zimmerman says, let's say that he approached Trayvon and asked him what he was doing in the area.
Does that give Martin the right to pin Zimmerman to the ground, delivering punch after punch (as the witness reported seeing) and slamming his head into the cement (as his wounds verify), while Zimmerman scream for help (backed up by initial police reports of what Zimmerman told them, and neighbors who heard the cries... there is even a recording of that on one of the 911 calls)?

Zimmerman could have been the biggest racist in the world. He could have been following Martin. He could have even asked him what he was doing there. Even if all of that were true (which the evidence does not support), it doesn't mean that once Zimmerman is on the ground, having his head pounded into the cement, he isn't justified in shooting Trayvon. You are not allowed to use deadly force because you don't like how someone looks or how they speak to you. You are allowed to use deadly force once there is a reasonable fear for your life. It doesn't even appear as though Zimmerman shot Martin when that threat was merely perceived. The shot was fired after life-threatening injuries were sustained, and after calling for help as neighbors retreated into their homes.

It was a justified kill. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and that's what I'm interested in. The evidence. The witnesses. The facts that we do have, and not the narrative that was created in the press afterward.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I'm not sure how you're getting to the conclusion that this means that Zimmerman was in pursuit.

Zimmerman spotted Martin and called 911. Two minutes into the call, Zimmerman remarked, "He's running." The operator asked Zimmerman which way, Zimmerman got out of his car. The operator asked if he was following Martin, to which Zimmerman replied, "Yeah."

That's not jumping to a conclusion, that's a statement of fact. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. He said so himself. As for Rachel Jeantel (not Martin's girlfriend), she lied about her age and she lied about why she didn't go to Martin's funeral, but her account of the phone call didn't change.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Was Zimmerman running when he said it? There is a difference between pursuing someone (with the goal of catching them) and walking in their direction to tell the cops which way they went.

If Trayvon is running and Zimmerman is not, Zimmerman isn't pursuing him. Only Michael Myers plays it that cool.


During the 911 call (I just listened to it again), Martin comes toward Zimmerman with his hand in his waist band, and then something in his hand. After coming toward Zimmerman, Martin runs. The operator asks which direction, and Zimmerman gets out of his car to look. He is not running. He seems to be looking around, but he lost sight of Trayvon. The operator tells Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow and Zimmerman says okay.

There is no pursuit here. Distant following, maybe. But by this point, Trayvon could be home if he kept running.

And nothing here shows any good reason for Trayvon to then be on top of Zimmerman, beating him.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Your bias is betrayed by your asymmetrical use of names.  You often call Martin by his first name, as you would a child, while you always call Zimmerman by his last name, as you would an adult.  Why?  Because you want to portray Zimmerman as the cool headed grown up in the situation.  You may not even be conscious of it.  The notion of black as being undeserving of being treated equally with white is deeply ingrained in many people.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Or... Trayvon was usually referred to by  either his full name or his first name in the press (justice for Trayvon) while Zimmerman was usually referred to by either his full name or his last name (the Zimmerman trial). So by your standards, I showed Martin more respect than most do, just by using his last name to begin with.

Your bias is made clear by the fact that you're not interested in actual facts or evidence and keep hanging your hat on wild accusations of racism.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:
Informant wrote:

I'm not sure how you're getting to the conclusion that this means that Zimmerman was in pursuit.

As for Rachel Jeantel (not Martin's girlfriend), she lied about her age and she lied about why she didn't go to Martin's funeral, but her account of the phone call didn't change.


Sorry. Didn't see this part at first.

Her details tend to shift. In some versions, Trayvon uses the racial slur. In others, he doesn't (which she says his mother wouldn't want to hear. I personally think slurs were the least of his problems). Her telling of what she heard Zimmerman say changes, leading me to believe that she didn't hear it very well at all.

She also lied about not watching the news coverage of the story, which we know because there are deleted tweets from her, showing that she was watching the coverage. It just gets hard to pin down the details and what she is saying when and why.

That said, I think there is a version of the truth in there. And I don't think that it conflicts with Zimmerman's story.

Rachel Jeantel says that Trayvon told her that there was a crazy-ass cracker (or whatever it was) was watching him. She urged Trayvon to run.

Zimmerman tells the 911 operator that the guy was running. He moved up the walkway to see where the guy was going. The operator says not to follow the guy and to meet the officers near the mailboxes. Zimmerman agrees.

According to Zimmerman, he started to walk back to his car and Trayvon jumped out of the bushes, asking him what his problem was. He said he didn't have a problem.

According Jeantel, she heard Trayvon ask Zimmerman why he was following him. She has different versions of what Zimmerman said in reaponse, so she probably hear much of this clearly.

Those two accounts phrase the encounter differently, but they don't contradict each other.

Zimmerman's account has Trayvon then saying "you have a problem now" and hitting him. We have nothing to confirm or deny this, but his injuries support the claim that he was hit in the nose, and we have eye witness testimony supporting Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was then on top of him, beating him while he screamed for help.


So the details are hazy, but the stories don't really conflict. Jeantel couldn't see where Trayvon was going or what he was doing. She confirms that he initiated the conversation that she heard, which lines up with what Zimmerman said. Neither of them have to be really lying here.

It still doesn't paint the picture of Zimmerman being in pursuit though.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.