ChrisWeigant.com

The Trump-Ryan Summit

[ Posted Wednesday, May 11th, 2016 – 17:30 UTC ]

Tomorrow, all eyes in Washington will be on the meeting between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan. Some Republicans hope this "summit" between two of the leaders of the Republican Party will signify how the party as a whole will move forward with Trump as the presidential nominee. Ryan surprised some last week by his refusal to endorse Trump -- yet. The big question is whether the two will exit the meeting with their arms around each other (figuratively if not literally), step to the microphones and announce that Trump will support Ryan's congressional agenda while Ryan will support Trump's candidacy. Anything short of full-throated enthusiasm for each other will be big news, to put this slightly differently.

Putting aside the question of what they'll do for the cameras after the big meeting, it's pretty easy to see what each of them wants from the other. Neither would fully admit to these positions in public, of course, but anyone who has watched the two men's political careers for the past year can tell what they're both hoping for.

Trump's goals are the easiest to understand. He wants congressional Republicans to support his candidacy. He wants a big, beautiful convention, unmarred by any tinge of intraparty feuding. He wants, essentially, to be left alone to campaign how he sees fit, but he also (if he's as smart as he thinks he is) wants the built-in Republican Party "ground game" to eagerly work for his candidacy to turn the voters out in November. Beyond that, he's probably pretty flexible on a wide range of hot-button political issues. Trump hasn't exactly been a paragon of consistency so far, so you'd have to assume he'd be open to at least softening some of his stated positions (outside of the ones he's never going to revisit, like building a wall on the Mexican border).

Ryan, on the other hand, has more complex and nuanced goals. His main concern, of course, is preserving and protecting his House majority in the upcoming election. Presiding over a historic loss of the House majority wouldn't exactly further his career much, to be blunt. So he's most concerned with getting Republicans elected (and re-elected) to House seats.

Ever since he reluctantly took the job, Speaker Ryan has had a vision of how the Republican Party can re-invent itself as "the party of ideas." He (quite rightly, in my opinion) saw that Republicans had descended into being nothing more than the "party of NO" pretty much ever since the Tea Partiers came to town. Republicans (especially in the House) define themselves nowadays by what they are against, so Ryan took it as his mission to flip that so the party could be for an agenda that (hopefully) the American people would agree with. A lofty goal, to be sure.

Ryan's problem, so far, has been that this has proven to be tougher than it sounds (and it sounds mighty tough, to begin with). He's already backed down from his initial stated goal of passing this agenda as a handful of bills, and sending it all to the Senate for action. Recently, he was backpedaling furiously and setting the bar quite a bit lower -- he will now only be putting out "white papers" rather than actual legislation, which will be vague on "areas that could be politically treacherous," and (the real admission of defeat) "it is unlikely that major parts of the agenda will actually be brought up for a vote before November." Got all that? The shining, positive agenda for Republicans to march into the twenty-first century is now going to be a couple of short position papers without details, which won't be voted on. The reason is patently obvious: the Republican agenda simply is not going to be popular, when people read the details.

Ryan was already desperately trying to achieve at least a partial victory by getting his fellow Republicans on board with any sort of agenda, no matter how vague. Then came the problem of Trump. Ryan's goal at this point was to somehow co-opt the meat of Trump's campaign platform. Ryan would offer Trump a prepared ready-to-go platform, which Trump could at least publicly say some nice things about, before he started ignoring large parts of it. This way, congressional Republicans could actually drive the Republican agenda. Ryan's dream would be of personally writing the platform document that is agreed to at the convention.

This is one of those things that wonky political types care deeply about, but that the rest of the public simply does not pay the slightest attention to. The party platform is a time-honored tradition reaching back in the annals of American history, but what is obvious to just about everybody is that it has become a completely meaningless exercise. Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- ever reads party platforms nowadays. Trump likely knows this, so what does he care what the party bigwigs throw into it? He can pick and choose which parts he will personally support, and it likely won't cost him any votes in the end.

Ryan is playing a much longer game than just getting through November, though. His ultimate goal is clearly to run for president himself at some point (2020, if Trump loses). His more immediate goal is to somehow survive the whirlwind of Donald Trump's candidacy, and pick up the pieces afterwards. By showing that he can get his House Republicans on board with a solid agenda, he was going to be the obvious savior of the party, after Trump loses to Clinton. That's been Ryan's plan for a while, now.

But Ryan's playing from a weak hand at this point, which is why it'll be interesting what happens at (and after) the big Trump meeting tomorrow. Ryan hasn't managed to put together six or seven bills that triumphantly show the voters what the Republican Party stands for. Just because John Boehner's gone doesn't mean the House Republicans have gotten any less contentious among themselves. Being balked by the Tea Party, Ryan dialed back expectations for his big agenda project, but it still does not actually exist on paper yet (indeed, not a single agenda item has appeared, as a draft bill or white paper or in any other form). So Ryan can't exactly pull a Newt Gingrich "Contract With America" out of the hat, at this point. The best he can manage is to say on television that he's not yet ready to back Trump, and force Trump to come to Washington on bended knee.

Trump is likely pretty bemused by all of this. He has a real instinct for sensing weakness in others, which is what he's likely sensing now in Ryan. Trump will likely offer to toss Ryan a few bones (such as influencing the official party platform at the convention), but he's certainly not going to be tied down by Ryan's agenda. Trump will likely tell Ryan to his face that he'll only be supporting whichever pieces of Ryan's agenda that he deems acceptable. In fact, since the agenda is by no means complete, Trump may even demand he be allowed some input of what will be on that agenda. Perhaps Ryan will have to add "build a big wall and make Mexico pay for it" to his own agenda.

Trump, as the presidential nominee, now outranks Ryan in the party's hierarchy. Unless the meeting blows up in everyone's face (Ryan storms out, refuses to endorse Trump, and steps down as the chair of the convention, perhaps), Trump will probably allow Ryan some face-saving over his precious agenda. Ryan will be allowed to complete his work, while Trump will not be constrained by it in any way (no matter what he says to the cameras immediately after the meeting). Both men will, in their own ways, claim to have gotten the upper hand in the big summit meeting. Trump will win in the short term, and run his campaign any damn way he feels like. Ryan will likely win in the long term, because if Trump crashes and burns in November, he'll be the sole Republican leader left who has any idea of what to do next.

While the summit is high drama in D.C., it's likely to be quickly forgotten by the electorate. Ryan and Trump will hash out some way to live with each other for the next six months, but normal people won't be paying that much attention. Ryan's going to pretend to be a strong voice after the summit meeting is over, but the real test of that isn't going to be whether he can save face with Trump or not. It's not going to be his leadership of the convention, either. The real thing to watch over the summer is whether Ryan can get anything down on paper at all that House Republicans can agree to. His lofty agenda project has already shrunk considerably, and it might shrink even further -- instead of many white papers on individual issues, we might just end up only seeing Republicans put out a couple of pages of bullet points.

There are many reasons why Donald Trump has been so successful, so far. But the big reason he's been able to get away with making up a policy platform on the fly (often taking stances wildly out of sync with traditional Republican positions) is that Republicans just don't currently have a policy platform they can all agree upon. House Republicans, by their intransigence and refusal to agree on just about anything, have created the very vacuum that Trump is filling. Trump can take any position he wants on just about anything, and there is no strong response from a unified Republican Party dictating the official position -- because they don't have one. So watch for Ryan to tout some meaningless concession Trump has made tomorrow (such as the official party platform document), only to be contradicted within days by Trump's insistence that he's going to chart his own policy course, no matter what Ryan thinks. Whether Ryan wants to admit it or not, because nobody's currently steering the Republican ship, Trump is going to easily be able to grab the helm. And once he does, he'll be steering that GOP ship himself, at least until Election Day.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

92 Comments on “The Trump-Ryan Summit”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,

    wow, brilliant analysis. this is the kind of political piece that makes this site the best on the web.

    JL

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    To quote Tuppy Glossop from P.G. Wodehouse's Brinkley Manor / Right Ho, Jeeves: "Tough luck on both of them, what?"

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ryan needs to understand that the GOP is Trump's Party now...

    There is an old military axiom that is especially apropos..

    Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    ryan knew he was in for a tough slog even before trump became the presumptive nominee. you can see a little shrug of the shoulders in almost every comment. trump on the other hand is having the time of his life - i'm convinced that one of the reasons many people vote for him is he's the only one of the entire bunch who seems to be genuinely enjoying himself. bill clinton was that way, and it's one of the things that made him so tough to hurt.

    @michale,

    as CW said, getting IN the way has pretty much been the mantra of the GOP for eight years running. it's a hard habit to suddenly break. by the way, are you bidding on zim's piece? i read in the guardian that he put it up for auction.

    JL

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I once asked this literary agent, uh, what kind of writing paid the best... he said, "Ransom notes."
    ~harry zimm, get shorty

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    as CW said, getting IN the way has pretty much been the mantra of the GOP for eight years running. it's a hard habit to suddenly break.

    Yea, can't argue with that..

    by the way, are you bidding on zim's piece? i read in the guardian that he put it up for auction.

    Yea, I saw that.. Who has that kind of $$$?? :D Good for GZ, though....

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like GZ got $25K for the weapon... Not too shabby...

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I think Betfair may be going dark in the USA. Odds are no longer available this morning, the site looks like it has be re-worked.

    Can anybody else confirm?

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can anybody else confirm?

    Trump bought it.. :D heh

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems to be up and working for me..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why don't you give me your login and password and I'll test your account for you.. :D heh

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    home with strep. honestly i'm surprised zimm's gun didn't fetch more

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    ACK!!!! I feel for ya... Being sick is no fun.... :(

    Yea, if it was marketed better, it probably would have had time to build up some interest....

    But, $25K for a $500 weapon ain't too bad...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [13],

    for the gun itself, yes. but i wouldn't be him for all the money in the world.

    JL

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    He seems pretty squared away, all things considered..

    Sure, he has to watch his back.. But every person in the country who has ever worn a badge has to do that....

    Of the two in Sanford, he definitely came out ahead.....

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Sure, he has to watch his back.. But every person in the country who has ever worn a badge has to do that....

    also everyone who has sexually molested his cousin, threatened his wife with a shotgun or punched his father in law in the face. factually speaking, zimm has not worn a police badge, but he has done those other things.

    JL

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    but he has done those other things.

    Not if we're speaking "factually" as you indicate we are...

    All you have are allegations that have been recanted or proven outright false...

    As I have said before, how would any of us fair if our entire lives were put under a microscope 24/7 and had over 40% of Americans wanting us dead and making up totally hair-brained and bogus crap??

    I doubt ANY of us would fare very well...

    The ONLY thing Zimmerman is guilty of is defending his life with deadly force...

    Anything else and everything else is nothing more than hysterical ideological claptrap...

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    All you have are allegations that have been recanted or proven outright false...

    michale, i think you've been having real difficulty understanding a few things. first, the difference between the inability of a prosecutor to prove something in court and having it factually being true or false. this difficulty seems to also be present when discussing hillary clinton's e-mails. second, and perhaps even more disturbing, the nature of what a fact even is.

    i realize it is totally arrogant of me to take this tone, but i find you very frustrating to chat with when it comes to facts vs opinions. maybe this will help:

    http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

    JL

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:
  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    pretend for a second that zimm had never gotten in a fight with trayvon martin, never shot him, never become reviled by lefty activists nor loved by righty activists.

    all you'd have left is a guy who fights with men and domestically abuses women. yes, allegedly. no, never proven so beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. but nonetheless evident as factually true.

    JL

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are confusing me..

    You speak of "facts" as they pertain to baseless allegations that, as I said, have been recanted..

    It's like when you said that Trump is a racist because someone said he said such and such and you call that (trump is a racist) a fact..

    Well, it's not a fact.. It's an opinion based on heresay...

    You then go on to say that facts that can't be proven in a court of law are still facts, apparently, just because you say so...

    Now that I have addressed the general, let me address the specifics..

    also everyone who has sexually molested his cousin,

    You have the unsubstantiated testimony of ONE person.....

    So, it's not a fact, but rather an unproven and unsubstantiated accusation...

    hreatened his wife with a shotgun punched his father in law in the face.

    Accusations that were later recanted.. IE It didn't happen..

    So, you don't have any FACTS....

    Now, I will grant you that it is a FACT that someone accused Zimmerman of this and that...

    Just like someone accused me of being a chat bot and a racist...

    But an accusation does not a fact make...

    Yes, you have a lot of accusations about Zimmerman floating around....

    But there is very little in the way of facts...

    The ONE fact that we DO know, the ONE fact that we can agree on is that Zimmerman's *ONLY* "crime" is defending his life with the use of deadly force..

    That is the ONLY relevant fact here...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    It's like when you said that Trump is a racist because someone said he said such and such and you call that (trump is a racist) a fact..

    no, that is an OPINION. see, it's important that we clear these things up.

    a FACT is something that in theory could be proven 100% true or 100% false. racism is a human attitude, a collection of opinions, so its presence or absence can be supported or refuted by facts, but it is never really factual.

    JL

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    zimm's cousin accused him of touching her sexually.

    that's a fact.

    his ex-wife and father in law accused zimm of pointing a gun at them, and punching him in the face.

    either he did or he didn't.

    either they were telling the truth or lying. no in-between or shades of grey. that's what makes those events facts.

    JL

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    either they were telling the truth or lying. no in-between or shades of grey. that's what makes those events facts.

    The ACCUSATIONS are facts..

    But, as you say, they could be lying.. So the event itself is NOT a fact....

    It's nothing more than an accusation...

    THAT's my point...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But, as you say, they could be lying.. So the event itself is NOT a fact....

    incorrect. the event IS a fact. whether or not it's true has zero bearing on whether or not it's factual.

    vinny: i THINK i GET the POINT.
    judge: I don't think you DO

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M -10, anybody

    I can log onto the site, but the AZ menu no longer list politics or anything much besides horse racing and horse racing doesn't actually work. OS 10 and Mac machines. I think it's my USA location.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way, Joshua...

    It's a FACT that people have accused Obama of being a muslim communist....

    But it's NOT a fact that Obama *IS* a muslim communist..

    You see the distinction???

    It's a FACT that Zimmerman has been accused of domestic violence..

    But's it's NOT a fact that Zimmerman has committed domestic violence...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts,

    try a VPN

    JL

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    incorrect. the event IS a fact. whether or not it's true has zero bearing on whether or not it's factual.

    If they are lying about the event, then the event is not factual...

    You seem to equate the accusation with being factual..

    If that's the case, then Obama *IS* a communist muslim...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But it's NOT a fact that Obama *IS* a muslim communist..

    technically that IS a fact. a demonstrably false fact, but a fact nonetheless.

    JL

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS

    You are not permitted to register with Betfair from the country you are in.
    https://register.betfair.com/account/registration/blocked

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    technically that IS a fact. a demonstrably false fact, but a fact nonetheless.

    If it's demonstrably false, then it can't be a fact... It's the OPPOSITE of fact...

    Someone is a little high on Cold Medicine...

    Not sure if it's me or you... :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    technically that IS a fact. a demonstrably false fact, but a fact nonetheless.

    It's a fact that someone SAID it..

    But it's not a fact itself...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just like it's a fact that someone ACCUSED Zimmerman of domestic violence.

    But that person later recanted and said they made it up..

    Ergo, the EVENT didn't happen.. Just the accusation happened..

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If it's demonstrably false, then it can't be a fact... It's the OPPOSITE of fact...

    i'll keep repeating this until it sinks in. facts can either be true or false. they just can't be anything in-between.

    JL

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    to clarify: "fact" as it is used in logic and philosophy goes beyond the lay meaning of "something true or accurate." teachers frequently have this problem with kids or parents who don't understand that the formal definition and the lay definition aren't the same.

    the reason that definition is used in pedagogy is that it helps students distinguish between statements that can and can't be conclusively proven. when someone is having trouble disentangling the objective world from their subjective point of view, the formal definition of fact is more useful than the lay definition.

    JL

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    facts can either be true or false.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree...

    If something is false, it's not a fact...

    If I say the sky is purple, that's not a fact..

    If I say Obama is a muslim, that's not a fact...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    28 - JL

    That's my thought as well. Any recommends?

    What irks me is that this is just another barrier in the way of free exchange of useful info.

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the concept of "fact" is about four hundred fifty years old. the idea that facts have to be true is only about two hundred years old. since that time, there has been a debate about the living language definition vs. the original intent of the word fact.

  40. [40] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hey JL....when it comes to Strep I like the Hot toddy with some brandy to help sleep it off.

    As to the Betfair thing I tried to access the election pages myself and it did not work. So....

    I fired off my Hola (nice VPN, especially when one is in Central America needing a HBO fix in english) told it to browse from the UK and i was in like Flynn.

  41. [41] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    OoPS, sorry JL I meant for TS...

  42. [42] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    As for VPN's...

    I use Hola or Tunnelbear chrome browser extensions. I haven't formulated an opine on which is best yet.

    Both are free and user friendly ...or at least they were when I loaded them.

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts,

    my fave is browsec. it's the simplest and requires the least maintenance of any i've come across.

    JL

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Actually, Zimmerman should have never been tried for Martin's death. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that this had been a textbook case of self-defense by Zimmerman:

    -- Except for the bullet hole, Martin showed only offensive wounds to his hands which were consistent to wounds one would exhibit from punching someone in the face and smashing their skull into the asphalt. GZ's wounds and testimony were consistent with those Martin displayed.

    --Based on the trajectory of the bullet, Martin had to be on top of and over GZ when the bullet entered his body. This was again consistent with GZ's claims that Martin had him pinned down to the ground with Martin's knees on GZ's shoulders.

    -- Based on the testimony of Martin's friend who was on the phone with Martin seconds before he encountered GZ, Martin was pissed off at how GZ, a total stranger to Martin, had looked at Martin when he passed by him. Martin told his friend that he was going to go "teach that cracker a lesson".

    If you remember correctly, GZ was not charged initially with Martin's death, as the prosecutor had absolutely no evidence to support any charges against GZ. It wasn't until public and political pressure became so great demanding that GZ be tried that the prosecutor caved into pressure and GZ was charged. No new evidence had been discovered, so the prosecutor had to ignore that he had no evidence to support the charges he filed against GZ.

    Why was there so much public outcry after this shooting than in other cases? I have never seen the media create such a fictional narrative for a case as they did this one. I was appalled when I first heard the about a black child walking back from a store after buying candy being shot for walking through a white neighborhood by a wanna-be cop member of the neighborhood watch, Looking at the picture of ten year-old Trayvon Martin, those cute, chubby cheeks.... How could anyone do something so heinous to such a sweet looking child. And that was the problem from the start: None of the large news outlets reported that Martin was shot after he attacked, wounded, and threatened to kill GZ. None of them bothered to use any recent pictures of Trayvon Martin - and there were plenty to choose from as Martin loved to post pictures of himself online -- pictures that would show Martin was no longer the chubby faced ten year old, but had grown into a muscular young man with a go-tee and large afro that looked like he could handle himself quite well in a physical altercation! Then there was the 911 call that NBC edited out the 911 call receiver's question, "What did the person you are reporting look like?" so that it just appears that GZ is claiming that wearing a hoodie was what made Martin seem suspicious. And of course, the most obvious question that no one bothered to ask, "What prevented Trayvon from just walking home?" GZ wasn't standing between him and his home.

    I actually viewed the trial, and it was shocking to me how just about everything I had been reading since the shooting occurred had been pure fiction! The prosecution has been accused of doing a terrible job, but when there is no evidence to support the charges being brought, that is all they could hope for. The most revealing statement came after the trial by the juror named "Gabby". She was the Latina juror who said that she initially wanted to find GZ guilty for Trayvon's mother. She said that when the jury was given the legal definition for "self-defense", it became clear to her that they had absolutely no choice but to find GZ "not guilty" and that the case should have never gone to trial! She said it was obvious that it only went to trial because the prosecutor wanted to put on a spectacle for the public!

    GZ should never have been forced to go on trial for the death of Trayvon Martin, I am no fan of George Zimmerman...he seems as slimy as they come...and he made for an easy target to vilify for the media. But the media showed absolutely no interest in reporting the facts of this case; choosing to stick with the Trayvon Martin story that they had crafted, instead. This case changed how much trust I now put into the stories being reported in the media as being factual.

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From Webster's:

    Legal Definition of fact
    1
    : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality
    2
    : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial

    I have to agree with Michale (gonna need a drink after typing this!), a FACT is not something that can be false. "She said Obama is a Muslim" is a fact in that "she" actually did say that. But "Obama is a Muslim" isn't a fact, as there is no truth to it.

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Just like it's a fact that someone ACCUSED Zimmerman of domestic violence.

    But that person later recanted and said they made it up..

    Ergo, the EVENT didn't happen.. Just the accusation happened..

    Technically, it does not mean that the EVENT did not happen. What it means is that the person changed their story, which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the event actually occurred.

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @listen,

    most online dictionaries are abridged, and the fully unabridged ones are behind pay walls. the english word fact was borrowed directly from latin (not via romance languages) and took on its scientific strain of meaning in the 1500's, probably due to the renaissance reaching england. as it developed the word came to mean "provable act or event." fact took on its current lay definition a hundred years later, and is still used in its classical sense in disciplines like logic and philosophy, as well as pedagogy. the reason for its use in education is that most children can't entirely fathom the necessary conditions for a statement to be factually true. they call statements facts that are subjective or logically unprovable.

    that the meaning of the word fact includes (and has for centuries included) a meaning of objectively true OR false, which has existed longer than the current lay definition, is itself a fact.

    JL

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22.

    I don't doubt what you are saying regarding the historical definitions for "fact", I just feel that trying to use an outdated definition of a word is not productive when debating such topics as politics. It causes side discussions that can overshadow the original discussion entirely. That said, I hope you get to feeling better! Strep can be a nasty bugger, so make sure to get your rest.

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    This is one of those things that wonky political types care deeply about, but that the rest of the public simply does not pay the slightest attention to. The party platform is a time-honored tradition reaching back in the annals of American history, but what is obvious to just about everybody is that it has become a completely meaningless exercise. Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- ever reads party platforms nowadays. Trump likely knows this, so what does he care what the party bigwigs throw into it?

    It was the GOP ignoring their own platform with contradictory policies that, in part, caused me to leave the party in 2008. They aren't fiscally conservative unless a Democrat is in the White House. They do not support our military personnel nearly as much as they do our military contractors. They don't want government intrusion into our lives, but that is only true for corporations. They have no problem wanting to check genitals to determine which bathroom a person should be using. But for me what really put me over the edge was the party suing to be able to lie in their campaign ads without the fear of being held legally culpable for any damages those lies might cause...and WINNING! If you are going to be that direct in letting me know that you are not going to be honest with me, I would be a fool to not take you at your word at least one last time!

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen

    Actually, Zimmerman should have never been tried for Martin's death. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that this had been a textbook case of self-defense by Zimmerman:

    Exactly!!!

    Your entire comment is dead on ballz accurate...

    VERY well said...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Technically, it does not mean that the EVENT did not happen. What it means is that the person changed their story, which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the event actually occurred.

    Thank you, Mr Schrodinger.. :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to agree with Michale (gonna need a drink after typing this!), a FACT is not something that can be false.

    After your Zimmerman comment, I am gonna need a whole bar!! :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    And of course, the most obvious question that no one bothered to ask, "What prevented Trayvon from just walking home?" GZ wasn't standing between him and his home.

    It's even worse than that..

    Martin actually DID make it home... He was at the place he was staying at, but really pissed off so Martin doubled back to attack Zimmerman..

    Like you said, this NEVER should have gone to trial...

    It was a politically motivated kangaroo court...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    And of course, the most obvious question that no one bothered to ask, "What prevented Trayvon from just walking home?" GZ wasn't standing between him and his home.

    It's even worse than that..

    Martin actually DID make it home... He was at the place he was staying at, but really pissed off so Martin doubled back to attack Zimmerman..

    Like you said, this NEVER should have gone to trial...

    It was a politically motivated kangaroo court...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    TheStig wrote:

    -nypoet22 and goode trickle

    Hola + Crome browser does the trick! Browsec + FireFox does not. Always keep a couple of browsers loaded and ready :)

    I suspected Betfair was up to something 2 or 3 days ago - I navigate mostly by Google, using 2 word search couplets that are easy for me to remember (I hardly bookmark anything these days). The couplets stopped "rhyming" with the Betfair Exchange a few days ago.

    Why did Betfair do this? A well placed source suggests it may have something to do with Betfair opening up on line horse race betting in N.J. USA. That's legal in the US, all the other betting options at Betfair are not. So, prune the menus for the Yanks.

    Anyhow, thanks for the help, problem solved.

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @think,

    agree completely that the media put out a ridiculous narrative that didn't apply to the objective events at all. disagree that it was a clear cut case of self-defense. not murder by any stretch, but probably manslaughter - or not guilty by mental defect. when the state decided to prosecute for murder i remember thinking it was a very extreme charge to level for such a sudden and unexpected event. Zimm started the chain of events by pursuing Martin after told not to by the police. He "knew or should have known his conduct was a threat to the lives of others." [florida code for involuntary manslaughter].

    self-defense protection does not apply to someone who starts off as the aggressor. michale keeps wanting to make the guy an honorary cop for his troubles, and i don't think that's appropriate.

    as to facts, the initial point of the conversation was the fact that zimmerman has been accused many times, by many people, of other forms of violent and threatening behavior, and has never been an officer of the law. those events have not been proven in court, but they haven't been disproved either. why would so many different people bring so many allegations to the authorities? it's not like the hillary clinton scandal of the week where there are political reasons. why then? is he just that unlucky?

    anyone who seriously believes he didn't do any of those things needs their head examined.

    JL

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Zimm started the chain of events by pursuing Martin after told not to by the police.

    Zimmerman started the chain of events by doing his job..

    Put another way.. If Zimmerman had been an off duty cop, then no one would have said boo...

    . He "knew or should have known his conduct was a threat to the lives of others."

    A security officer's job is to "observe and report"...

    Zimmerman was simply trying to accomplish his job description..

    For you to be accurate, one would have to assume that every security guard in the country must not do their jobs because it "was a threat to the lives of others"..

    That's just ridiculous..

    self-defense protection does not apply to someone who starts off as the aggressor.

    Even if Zimmerman was the aggressor (which he wasn't) he was STILL within the boundries of self defense..

    Say I were to walk up to joe blow and deck him. After he gets up, he starts to pummel me. I scream for help but Joe continues to pummel me. I am legally within my rights to draw my weapon and shoot Joe and it would be a good shoot..

    The *ONLY* requirement for self-defense is that a person must have a reasonable belief that their life is in danger...

    anyone who seriously believes he didn't do any of those things needs their head examined.

    So, what you are saying is that, where there is smoke, there is fire..

    OK.. Let's apply that to Hillary Clinton..

    Anyone who doesn't believe that Hillary did any of those things needs their head examined.

    You see how it works both ways??

    You are demanding a level of proof for accusations against Hillary that you do NOT demand for accusations against Zimmerman..

    it's not like the hillary clinton scandal of the week where there are political reasons. why then? is he just that unlucky?

    Maybe it's because 40% of Americans want Zimmerman dead... And the MSM's bias against Zimmerman is self-evident.. And you are getting your information against Zimmerman FROM that biased MSM...

    So, you answer your own question... The Media has PROVEN that they are willing to just make shit up to get Zimmerman..

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    In your claim of Zimmerman as the aggressor, you completely IGNORE the fact that Martin was already home when he turned around, stalked Zimmerman and attacked him...

    There is absolutely NO WAY you can rationally paint Zimmerman as the aggressor..

    NO way, NO how...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, you answer your own question... The Media has PROVEN that they are willing to just make shit up to get Zimmerman..

    to them he was just a story, which they told inaccurately to garner higher ratings. why would his cousin, a police officer and his fiancee make stuff up? that was before anybody had even heard of trayvon martin.

    There is absolutely NO WAY you can rationally paint Zimmerman as the aggressor..

    i can and i have. you keep saying, "if he was a cop," this or that... but he is NOT one. someone who is neither a police officer nor a licensed PI following a person, not identifying himself in any official capacity, even when asked directly, is suspicious and threatening. it's an aggressive action. if somebody did that to me, i'd be scared. i might be tempted to do something back.

    Say I were to walk up to joe blow and deck him. After he gets up, he starts to pummel me. I scream for help but Joe continues to pummel me. I am legally within my rights to draw my weapon and shoot Joe

    now we're getting somewhere. you instigated the attack that you were defending yourself from. according to criminal.lawyers.com,

    Self-defense is designed to protect people who don’t start trouble. It fundamentally doesn’t apply “aggressors.”

    it states that courts have been inconsistent at how they apply the aggressor exception to self defense when escalation occurs.

    JL

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as to hillary: there are very strong political motives for people who don't know her well to make stuff up about her. however, the people accusing zimm haven't been strangers, they've been family, spouses, people close to him. the equivalent would be if the benghazi accusations had been brought by bill or chelsea clinton. close family members have every motive in the world to recant a true story to the authorities and rarely have motive to concoct a false one - which is why it strains credulity that so many different close relations of zimm all made unrelated false reports to the authorities, all indicating different forms of domestic abuse.

    JL

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    i can and i have. you keep saying, "if he was a cop," this or that... but he is NOT one. someone who is neither a police officer nor a licensed PI following a person, not identifying himself in any official capacity, even when asked directly, is suspicious and threatening. it's an aggressive action.

    That's your opinion, not a fact..

    Doing all of what you describe IS the job description of a security officer..

    Regardless of all that, TRAYVON MARTIN made it home... The minute he decided to double back and attack Zimmerman, he became the aggressor..

    You ignore that point..

    it states that courts have been inconsistent at how they apply the aggressor exception to self defense when escalation occurs.

    So the courts are inconsistent.. I gave you an extreme example that is legally acceptable..

    Zimmerman did nothing of the sort.. He simply observed a suspicious individual in an area under his responsibility and an area that has seen a rash of criminal activity.. He attempted to OBSERVE the individual.. Nothing criminal or nefarious there... It's the job of a security officer..

    Martin, on the other hand, was high and made specific racist threats against Zimmerman. Then decided to leave the safety of his residence and attack Zimmerman. Who had already given up on observing and was heading back to his vehicle..

    NO WHERE in the known universe would Zimmerman's actions be construed as nothing more nefarious than a concerned citizen and conscientious neighbor looking out for his fellow neighbors...

    The FACT that Martin was home and choose to pursue and attack Zimmerman proves beyond ANY doubt that it was Martin that was the criminal and the aggressor, not Zimmerman..

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Zimm started the chain of events by pursuing Martin after told not to by the police.

    As a former 911 call receiver, my telling someone to stay where they are until police arrive was not the same as the police telling someone not to move. GZ was out of his vehicle when he made the call and was walking around the lot, but never left the address he had called from. He was waiting for the police to arrive.

    The case was not a "stand your ground" case in the sense that Zimmerman was not arguing that as his defense. Had Martin prevailed, it could be argued that Trayvon Martin's attack of Zimmerman was a "stand your ground" move, I feel.

    The media saw how much attention this story quickly got, and they did everything possible to fan the flames of racial hatred to keep people coming back for more. Sadly, they continued to do this with almost every killing of a black person by someone of a differing race ever since. Tamir Rice was 5'7 205# when he was shot, not the 5' 100# little tyke we always see in the picture used by the press.

    Eric Gardner had refused to be arrested the day before he was shown refusing arrest in the video of his death. Two officers went to arrest Gardner with a court ordered warrant and Gardner refused. Since there were only two of them and Gardner was such a large man, the officers chose to walk away and try again later. That was why there were more than a dozen officers shown in the video, they had hoped the show of force would be enough to make Gardner realize he was not going to be able to resist so that he would comply. Gardner still chose to resist. The police had brought enough manpower to compel compliance with as little risk of injury to all parties involved. The video is tough to watch. Watching a man die is not something most of us will ever be comfortable viewing. That said, there was nothing in that video that came anywhere near being "excessive force", much less "police brutality". The infamous "choke hold" wasn't a true choke hold, it was a "headlock". The difference being that in a headlock, Gardner could scream, "I can't breathe!" eleven times at the top of his lungs; in a choke hold, Gardner might have gotten, "I ca...." out once, but that would have barely been a whisper.

    Side note: Gardner most likely died as a result of what is called "excited delirium" which includes positional asphyxiation. Google it if you are interested, but it is basically that our bodies have a hard wired "kill switch" that is triggered by our nervous system's fight or flight response. Imagine our caveman brothers being hunted by a T-Rex (I know, different periods but stay with me). He is captured, pinned down and about to suffer a terrible death. The body accepts that it is going to die and triggers the kill switch to prevent suffering. Once this starts, there is no saving the person. All systems shut down immediately. The stories of people fighting and screaming with police until they are forced into handcuffs, face down on the ground and suddenly they stop screaming, and then they are dead are numerous. Typically the person is overweight and has put up a manic struggle prior to their death.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    as to hillary: there are very strong political motives for people who don't know her well to make stuff up about her.

    Just as their are very strong racial motives for people who don't know Zimmerman well to make up stuff about him...

    It's the exact same issue...

    which is why it strains credulity that so many different close relations of zimm all made unrelated false reports to the authorities, all indicating different forms of domestic abuse.

    And yet, with the issues of domestic violence, the accusers ADMITTED that they were making it up... I don't have to prove it didn't happen. The accusers STATED that it didn't happen..

    As to molestation issue.. Have you read Lena Dunham's book?? The one where Dunham ADMITTED to forcefully penatrating her sister's vagina with fingers and objects on SEVERAL occasions??

    Why isn't she demonized and castigated by the Left as Zimmerman is???

    Because ya'all WANT to believe that Zimmerman is evil incarnate and turd blossoms like Dunham are the epitome of goodness and light...

    It's all about political ideology... Nothing more....

    The Zimmerman accusation is believable.. The Dunham accusation is not... Even though they are, for all intents and purposes, the same accusation..

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    You need to cut it out or I am actually going to start liking you!! :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    why would his cousin, a police officer and his fiancee make stuff up? that was before anybody had even heard of trayvon martin.

    And why weren't these accusations given any credence BEFORE Trayvon Martin??

    THAT's the question you need to answer...

    If there wasn't enough evidence to conclude that these accusations are credible BEFORE the Sanford shooting, then why would they, all of the sudden become important AFTER the Sanford shooting???

    Further, if you are going to look at Zimmerman's past, then you HAVE to look at Martin's past..

    The drugs.. The violence.. The guns... The burglaries...

    You can't point to every little misdeed of Zimmerman's and claim relevance then turn around and ignore Martin's past....

    You see, THAT is the problem with the Left's position on this. It's a position borne, not of facts and reality, but of political ideology... Racist accusations in an incident that was COMPLETELY devoid of racism on the part of Zimmerman...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And why weren't these accusations given any credence BEFORE Trayvon Martin??

    his cousin said she and the other woman she knows who zimm molested when they were children were afraid of him and only felt comfortable coming forward once he was no longer in a position to retaliate. as far as i know, that story was never recanted, nor the story of the woman who was engaged to zimm and broke it off in 2005. the two post-trayvon domestic abuse stories were recanted. it's common for victims of abuse to recant their story, not as common for non-victims to make up imaginary abuse.

    if any of these were isolated incidents, i'd say give the guy the benefit of the doubt. but the entire body of evidence as a whole points to someone with major anger management issues who knows how to work the system to avoid punishment. but likewise, someone who ought not be lionized nor named an honorary police officer.

    which brings us back to where this conversation begins. zimm is no hero and no cop. he has to look over his shoulder as a direct consequence of his own actions.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    which brings us back to where this conversation begins. zimm is no hero and no cop.

    He's no cop is a factual statement...

    He's no hero is a subjective opinion..

    Anyone that can take a dangerous thug off the streets is as close to a hero as can come...

    he has to look over his shoulder as a direct consequence of his own actions.

    Considering that he would likely have been killed if he hadn't taken those actions, I doubt you would find GZ complaining...

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone that can take a dangerous thug off the streets is as close to a hero as can come...

    Who knows how many lives have been saved by taking Martin out of the gene pool... Considering Martin's past, it's likely he would have been dead before he hit 20 anyways...

    Taking who knows how many with him....

    The world is a better place without the Trayvon Martins and the Michael Browns in it..

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you have to ask yourself one question..

    Would anyone of the Left Wingery had cared one iota about Trayvon Martin if he were not black??

    I think we both know the answer to that...

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    A security officer's job is to "observe and report"...

    Zimmerman was simply trying to accomplish his job description..

    For you to be accurate, one would have to assume that every security guard in the country must not do their jobs because it "was a threat to the lives of others"..

    Well, if we are going to play what's really a fact, this isn't. His job was insurance underwriter. He was a volunteer neighborhood watch captain or coordinator depending on what story you read. And out of canon Spock quotes will not change that...

    Anyone that can take a dangerous thug off the streets is as close to a hero as can come...

    I've seen your evidence to that effect. Another interpretation was he was a teenager. I think you are committing the exact same over extrapolation that you are accusing others of making. If Zimmerman is not a hot head abuser due to lack of evidence, I think the same has to be said for Martin and your drug, thug accusations.

  71. [71] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I do not think that Zimmerman is a good guy by any means, but even the scummiest of slime balls has a right to defend their own scummy life! However, I do think that GZ has every right to have a chip on his shoulder for how he was destroyed in the press. He constantly did things that did nothing to help the public's opinion of him, but I also cannot fathom having what must have felt like the entire world hating you because you chose to live instead of allowing someone to violently end your life! He is a guy that is easy to dislike as it is, so for a guy like him to become the subject of a teenager's shooting death it was like a feeding frenzy for the media when they smelled his blood in the water!

    Then you have Officer Darrin Wilson who the press went after, as well as the entire city of Ferguson. What disgusted me with this case was that the press played dumb with regards to how police investigations and the freedom of information act work. They claimed that the video of Brown committing strong armed robbery was released by the police chief in order to discredit Brown, when they knew good and well that the police were simply following their state's public records laws by releasing the video. The press also hit on document that looked like Wilson had started but never finished his report the night of the shooting. The press could have educated the public on how the laws surrounding public records do not let documents that are part of an active investigation to be released. They could have explained that an officer that is involved in a shooting does not file a report, themselves, on the shooting. Detectives take the officers statement, but if the officer wrote their report, that report could be used against them even though they were never informed of their right to remain silent prior to writing it. This is done to protect the officer's constitutional right against self-incrimination and protect the prosecution's case against the officer if charges are warranted from being tossed out in court on a technicality. These are things the public does not realize and that the press takes advantage of their ignorance to make stories more sensational.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, if we are going to play what's really a fact, this isn't. His job was insurance underwriter. He was a volunteer neighborhood watch captain or coordinator depending on what story you read.

    The fact that he was not paid for being a security officer doesn't mean squat...

    As a neighborhood watch captain, Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to observe Martin and try to establish Martin's bona fides..

    ANY person has the right to do that...

    I've seen your evidence to that effect. Another interpretation was he was a teenager.

    I was a teenager. I didn't do drugs, commit burglaries, fondle guns or beat people..

    I am fairly certain you didn't either..

    I think the same has to be said for Martin and your drug, thug accusations.

    Except Martins drug use and violence and guns and burglaries are documented facts...

    He was high when he was killed...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Would anyone of the Left Wingery had cared one iota about Trayvon Martin if he were not black??

    Which Trayvon are we talking about -- the real one or the one the press gave birth to? I can't fault people for supporting Travon because they have been misled by the press. Sadly, you'll never see the press admit that they did anything wrong with how they reported a story. Huff Post ran an article calling the Ferguson police chief a liar for saying that he had to release the video of Brown because the press had requested it. The article was playing the semantics game -- the public records request did not specificly identify the video, but it did request all items related to Michael Brown which encompassed the video and was the reason it was released.

  74. [74] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    He was high when he was killed...

    On marijuana, which I thought at the time was a fact in Martin's favor...

    Everything else is texts, tweets and accusations without convictions, about the same level as what Zimmerman is accused of...

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think you are committing the exact same over extrapolation that you are accusing others of making. If Zimmerman is not a hot head abuser due to lack of evidence, I think the same has to be said for Martin and your drug, thug accusations.

    Irregardless of what I said above, the point you are making is the point I was making..

    JL et al want to demonize Zimmerman for his past, but ignore the violence and drugs and guns and burglaries of Martin's past..

    In other words, I am more than willing to disregard as irrelevant Martin's past if JL et al is willing to disregard as irrelevant Zimmerman's past...

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everything else is texts, tweets and accusations without convictions, about the same level as what Zimmerman is accused of...

    Fair enough...

    If Martin's past is irrelevant, so is Zimmerman's...

    That's the only point I am making...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which Trayvon are we talking about -- the real one or the one the press gave birth to?

    Either....

    The press wouldn't have given a rip about Martin if he were not black....

    The public wouldn't have even heard about Martin if he were not black...

    The Left Wingery would have ignored the Martin shooting if he were not black...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was a teenager. I didn't do drugs, commit burglaries, fondle guns or beat people..

    I didn't fondle people or beat guns either.. :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    JL et al want to demonize Zimmerman for his past, but ignore the violence and drugs and guns and burglaries of Martin's past..

    what's the difference whether trayvon martin was good or bad? martin was seventeen. he HAD no past. and now he has no future. george is the only one of the two currently alive, and needs no demonizing beyond what's already on the record. based on reports that have been neither recanted nor refuted, george was molesting six year olds, shoving police officers and abusing his fiancee well before martin hit ten years old, much less seventeen.

    all of this is documented in court records and testimony under oath. yes, it's my opinion that george is no hero, and there are many people who don't have the celebrity of a media circus and are equally deserving of the public ire. if only every abuser had to fear for their safety like george zimmerman does.

    JL

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    e HAD no past. and now he has no future.

    He has a much worse past than Zimmerman..

    As to his future??

    He made his choices and he died by them...

    and needs no demonizing beyond what's already on the record. based on reports that have been neither recanted nor refuted, george was molesting six year olds, shoving police officers and abusing his fiancee well before martin hit ten years old, much less seventeen.

    And, based on reports Hillary has murdered or had a hand in murdering over a hundred people..

    It's funny how you only want to believe the "reports" that support your particular ideology.. :D

    But when ALL is said and down, the only FACT is that George Zimmerman's only "crime" is not letting some punk thug gangsta-wannabe beat him to death...

    That's the ONLY fact here...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the OTHER fact is, no one on the Left would have given a damn about Trayvon Martin if he hadn't been black or if Zimmerman had been black.....

    That puts this whole debacle in perspective as far it's ideological foundation goes..

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [80],

    no, the shooting was not his only crime. spousal abuse, assaulting a police officer and sexually molesting his cousin are the other three. the former was not pursued because the restraining order was observed. the second was pleaded down to a misdemeanor. audio testimony for the third can be found here:

    http://www.axiomamnesia.com/Audio/Trayvon-Zimmerman-Witness-Interviews/Trayvon_Martin_George_Zimmerman_Audio_ZIMMERMAN_INT_W9_1.mp3

    this isn't some clinton conspiracy theory, it's real people this happened to. trayvon martin is irrelevant. george zimmerman earned the public ire he later received many times over, well before the trayvon martin incident.

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i dare anyone to listen to that testimony all the way through and claim the witness is lying.

    maybe george zimmerman was vilified for the wrong crime. but if anyone on the planet deserves to be vilified, he's definitely earned it.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    maybe george zimmerman was vilified for the wrong crime. but if anyone on the planet deserves to be vilified, he's definitely earned it.

    Fine..

    As long as we agree that the Trayvon Martin shooting was completely and unequivocally self-defense, you can damn Zimmerman for every other imagined crime you want...

    But the Sandford shooting was self-defense and the Left Wingery's conduct and the media's conduct in the aftermath of that shooting was deplorable and abhorrent...

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @81,

    It sure doesn't sound imagined. The lady is crying while she tells what he did to her as a child. We are not going to see eye to eye on his decisions leading up to the situation that forced him to kill Martin. My hope is that at least you will accept the evidence that he also molested children, assaulted a cop and abused his ex fiancée. Having listened to the tapes and read the reports, if that is the kind of man you want to be chummy with, there's not a lot i can say.

    JL

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    It sure doesn't sound imagined.

    With the right incentive, people can imagine quite a bit... It wouldn't surprise me if this lady received a nice payout from someone over this..

    We are not going to see eye to eye on his decisions leading up to the situation that forced him to kill Martin.

    That's true.. Because you refuse to accept the facts of the incident.. You prefer to believe the Leftist MSM narrative that we have ALL agreed, was pure fiction..

    My hope is that at least you will accept the evidence that he also molested children, assaulted a cop and abused his ex fiancée.

    I don't accept the evidence because it comes from the above mentioned pure fiction writing Leftist MSM..

    If he had molested someone why wasn't he charged?? The assault on the cop has already been explained and it was nothing.. The "abuse" on his ex-fiancee has already been recanted and, according to the ex-fiancee, didn't happen...

    Having listened to the tapes and read the reports, if that is the kind of man you want to be chummy with, there's not a lot i can say.

    Because he is NOT that kind of man.. And I *KNOW* that from personal experience..

    The Leftist MSM, who is crucifying Zimmerman with all of the above reports, is the same Leftist MSM who tried to get the world to believe that Zimmerman was a racist..

    They blatantly lied about that.. Why do you think they are being honest about anything else to do with Zimmerman??

    Here's what it all boils down to.

    You think a certain way about Zimmerman because you read it somewhere from sources who have already been proven beyond any doubt to be untrustworthy..

    I KNOW how Zimmerman is because I KNOW the person..

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Child molesting is a very serious issue..

    http://www.people.com/article/lena-dunham-molestation-accusations-twitter

    Except, apparently, when it's done by a Left Winger....

    :^/

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't tell me...

    I can guess...

    "Well... That's different..."

    :^/

    The ONLY "difference" is one is a Right Winger, the other is a Left Winger...

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference.."
    -Spock

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    With the right incentive, people can imagine quite a bit... It wouldn't surprise me if this lady received a nice payout from someone over this..

    you met the guy once, therefore he couldn't POSSIBLY have done what all these women say he did. i met OJ once at a sushi bar - really friendly, charming, respectful, not at all like a guy who would murder his ex-wife and hold up a memorabilia shop at gunpoint. maybe i'm wrong and all those women are just shilling for the media, but either way, you don't know jack about who zimmerman really is, and if you think you do you're kidding yourself.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    i met OJ once at a sushi bar - really friendly, charming, respectful, not at all like a guy who would murder his ex-wife

    Actually, if the prosecution's evidence is to be believed, there is absolutely NO WAY that OJ could have been the killer..

    maybe i'm wrong and all those women are just shilling for the media, but either way, you don't know jack about who zimmerman really is, and if you think you do you're kidding yourself.

    Point conceded...

    But here's the thing...

    What I know about Zimmerman, I know from personal experience..

    What you know about Zimmerman, you have read in the media. Media, I must point out, that has *PROVEN* they will say anything about the man to vilify and demonize him..

    All things being equal, my position trumps yours.. :D

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Get it???

    My position *TRUMPS* yours?? Get it?? :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My position *TRUMPS* yours?? Get it?? :D

    your position calls my position names?

    incites its supporters to beat my position up?

    promises to build a wall between the positions and make my position pay for it?

    agrees with it, disagrees with it, agrees while disagreeing, disagrees while agreeing and has three other unrelated opinions on it, all in the span of five minutes?

    oh wait, you meant the OTHER kind of trumps...

    ;-)

    JL

Comments for this article are closed.