Trump refuses to apologize for Central Park 5 death ad

[hollodero]

(06-19-2019, 01:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: what does Trump have to apologize for in the article and so far I've received no answer.

I guess the answer would be - if Trump only had written the article, if it were only about that, then probably nothing (except, well, for maybe stirring all kinds of fears and tension, but whatever). But the article is not an isolated thing and clearly stands in context to many of his other claims and statements regarding the Central Park 5 he made, back then and until now. I suppose that context is quite clear to many, as it is quite clear to me.
 
It's not just about the op-ed. And as others already have stated, the OP distinctly says so.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: **sigh**

This is getting old


Get it now?

(06-19-2019, 03:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one who read the OP is confused.  It clearly mentions his subsequent media appearances.

Some one just fails at reading comprehension.

My failing at read aside. I got it a long time ago I also got I would most likely not get a straight answer. 

I read the OP and was motivated to read the actual text of this message that many were asserting he was talking specifically about these 5 individuals. Once I read it I discovered it was not pointed at anyone in particular and talked about violent crime against all folks in his town. 

So I shared the oped, asked people to base it on its own merit (what was that reading comprehension quote again), and tell me what in the article he should apologize for as the title of the thread condemns him for. So far a lot of "look at all this he did wrong" and condemning him for his actions after the article (which I too have done). 

This is just bfine's guess at what folks really feel: He should apologize for exercising his 1st amendment right to advocate for a stance of which I disagree.

[Benton]

Outside of mudslinging, I don't see the point in bringing it up. Or the documentary. It's not exactly a new story.

Of course, his reaction to it is typical Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 03:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: I guess the answer would be - if Trump only had written the article, if it were only about that, then probably nothing (except, well, for maybe stirring all kinds of fears and tension, but whatever). But the article is not an isolated thing and clearly stands in context to many of his other claims and statements regarding the Central Park 5 he made, back then and until now. I suppose that context is quite clear to many, as it is quite clear to me.
 
It's not just about the op-ed. And as others already have stated, the OP distinctly says so.

Yeah I get context is a funny thing. 

Not too long ago I posted a thread titled "Trump talks the talk, but Biden walks the walk". Guess how many people were interested in the context of the OP that the same person that wanted to fight Trump for saying things (groping) was found to have actually been doing the act? 

I think I've still got one that's titled "I'm Pro Choice". Guess how many cared that the context was about assisted suicide, but rather used it as a launching point for something else?

The title of this thread is "Trump refuses to apologize for Central Park 5 death ad". The context is he should apologize for the oped AND his follo up comments on the CP5. I've agreed his actions currently are beneath POTUS, my question remains what should Donald Trump apologize for in that oped he wrote as a private citizen and a citizen of the city in which he opines about violent crime?

[hollodero]

(06-19-2019, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not too long ago I posted a thread titled "Trump talks the talk, but Biden walks the walk". Guess how many people were interested in the context of the OP that the same person that wanted to fight Trump for saying things (groping) was found to have actually been doing the act? 

I think I've still got one that's titled "I'm Pro Choice". Guess how many cared that the context was about assisted suicide, but rather used it as a launching point for something else?

Guess how much that interests me?

You asked a question, I gave you a respectful, sincere, content-related answer, and you give me back this kind of talk of how unfairly your former thread titles were treated in comparison to this one and whatnot. Sure, that's really important to discuss at length. But that debate ain't for me, there are other kids around for that.

But please, do not turn deliberately adversarial. You recently called me names for suggesting that.

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2019, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've agreed his actions currently are beneath POTUS, my question remains what should Donald Trump apologize for in that oped he wrote as a private citizen and a citizen of the city in which he opines about violent crime?

Why is it okay for private citizen to call for an end of the Civil Liberties encoded in our Constitution but not the President?

I really have a hard time following your arguments sometimes, but I think I see what is happening here.  In order to justify voting for a lying, cheating, sexist, racists pussygrabber you just say "All of that is okay for a private citizen."

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 05:21 PM)hollodero Wrote: Guess how much that interests me?

You asked a question, I gave you a respectful, sincere, content-related answer, and you give me back this kind of talk of how unfairly your former thread titles were treated in comparison to this one and whatnot. Sure, that's really important to discuss at length. But that debate ain't for me, there are other kids around for that.

But please, do not turn deliberately adversarial. You recently called me names for suggesting that.

Not adversarial just providing context to my replies. 

Admittedly you gave the most earnest answer to date, but the competition was really that stiff.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 05:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why is it okay for private citizen to call for an end of the Civil Liberties encoded in our Constitution but not the President?

I really have a hard time following your arguments sometimes, but I think I see what is happening here.  In order to justify voting for a lying, cheating, sexist, racists pussygrabber you just say "All of that is okay for a private citizen."

Did you nothing the words I wrote followed by one of these "?". 

Let's try you answering the question posed first. 

The rest is just red herrings and clearly shows you cannot post a direct answer to the question posed

[BmorePat87]

May 1st, 1989: Trump pays for full page ad that refers to the "criminals of every age" who "beat and rape" a woman.

May 1989: Trump appears on Larry King to defend the ad, specifically saying that the ad refers to the Central Park 5 and he was advocating for their death if they are found guilty

2002: Central Park 5 are exonerated

April 24th, 2013: "The Central Park Five documentary was a one-sided piece of garbage that didn't explain the.horrific crimes of these young men while in park,"

June 2013: Trump pushes back at someone who asks why he still thinks they're guilty and twice tweets that they are muggers

June 21st, 2014: Trump publishes an op ed in the New York Daily News that calls NYC's settlement with the CP5 "a disgrace". "Settling doesn't mean innocence... Speak to the detectives on the case and try listening to the facts. These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels. What about all the people who were so desperately hurt and affected? I hope it's not too late to continue to fight and that this unfortunate event will not have a repeat episode any time soon — or ever."

June 22nd, 2014: "I'd bet the lawyers for the Central Park 5 are laughing at the stupidity of N.Y.C. when there was such a strong case against their 'clients'"

October 2016: "They admitted they were guilty. The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."

[GMDino]

(06-19-2019, 11:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: May 1st, 1989: Trump pays for full page ad that refers to the "criminals of every age" who "beat and rape" a woman.

May 1989: Trump appears on Larry King to defend the ad, specifically saying that the ad refers to the Central Park 5 and he was advocating for their death if they are found guilty

2002: Central Park 5 are exonerated

April 24th, 2013: "The Central Park Five documentary was a one-sided piece of garbage that didn't explain the.horrific crimes of these young men while in park,"

June 2013: Trump pushes back at someone who asks why he still thinks they're guilty and twice tweets that they are muggers

June 21st, 2014: Trump publishes an op ed in the New York Daily News that calls NYC's settlement with the CP5 "a disgrace". "Settling doesn't mean innocence... Speak to the detectives on the case and try listening to the facts. These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels. What about all the people who were so desperately hurt and affected? I hope it's not too late to continue to fight and that this unfortunate event will not have a repeat episode any time soon — or ever."

June 22nd, 2014: "I'd bet the lawyers for the Central Park 5 are laughing at the stupidity of N.Y.C. when there was such a strong case against their 'clients'"

October 2016: "They admitted they were guilty. The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."

Yes but that is what research gets you. 


Life it much easier if you already have a set opinion and then focus singly on the headline/title of the thread rather than look at the story.

Also it allows you to say you are NOT defending Trump...it just might look that way.

[*bfine32*]

(06-19-2019, 11:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: May 1st, 1989: Trump pays for full page ad that refers to the "criminals of every age" who "beat and rape" a woman.

May 1989: Trump appears on Larry King to defend the ad, specifically saying that the ad refers to the Central Park 5 and he was advocating for their death if they are found guilty

2002: Central Park 5 are exonerated

April 24th, 2013: "The Central Park Five documentary was a one-sided piece of garbage that didn't explain the.horrific crimes of these young men while in park,"

June 2013: Trump pushes back at someone who asks why he still thinks they're guilty and twice tweets that they are muggers

June 21st, 2014: Trump publishes an op ed in the New York Daily News that calls NYC's settlement with the CP5 "a disgrace". "Settling doesn't mean innocence... Speak to the detectives on the case and try listening to the facts. These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels. What about all the people who were so desperately hurt and affected? I hope it's not too late to continue to fight and that this unfortunate event will not have a repeat episode any time soon — or ever."

June 22nd, 2014: "I'd bet the lawyers for the Central Park 5 are laughing at the stupidity of N.Y.C. when there was such a strong case against their 'clients'"

October 2016: "They admitted they were guilty. The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."

So maybe the OP can answer. What in the ad should POTUS apologize for?

[Dill]

(06-20-2019, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So maybe the OP can answer. What in the ad should POTUS apologize for?

Deliberately disregarding facts to foment hatred against victims of police injustice?

Double apology now that he is the nation's chief officer of justice and law enforcement.

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2019, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So maybe the OP can answer. What in the ad should POTUS apologize for?

Everything in the post you quoted. 

[GMDino]

(06-19-2019, 11:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes but that is what research gets you. 


Life it much easier if you already have a set opinion and then focus singly on the headline/title of the thread rather than look at the story.

Also it allows you to say you are NOT defending Trump...it just might look that way.

(06-20-2019, 12:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So maybe the OP can answer. What in the ad should POTUS apologize for?

No amount of evidence will change the mind of someone who wishes to remain ignorant in order to avoid admitting their own mistake.  

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2019, 07:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you nothing the words I wrote followed by one of these "?". 

Let's try you answering the question posed first. 

The rest is just red herrings and clearly shows you cannot post a direct answer to the question posed

Sorry, let me make it more simple so you can understand.

This.  .  .  

(06-19-2019, 05:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why is it okay for private citizen to call for an end of the Civil Liberties encoded in our Constitution but not the President?

.  .  .  Means the president should apologize for calling for the end of civil liberties encoded in our Constitution.

I forget about your problems with complex statements.

[*bfine32*]

As usual I'll just leave it as disagreeing with the Alliance.

A private citizen wrote an oped about violence in his city. the direction policing has gone in the last 10 years, and opined that people of all races were being assaulted. He further called upon Laws to be strengthened as a deterrent. He single out no race, no specific crime, and called for no action from civilians.

During the same time frame 5 boys are accused of an assault, and he is asked if he feels compassion for them (aka no death sentence) he said if guilty then he feels no compassion and provides examples of assaulters throwing their victims off roof tops.

Many years later the 5 boys he said he felt no compassion for if guilty were found not to be. And now that he's POTUS in some strange twist of logic he should apologize for the oped he wrote.

As I said: He should be ashamed to continue to question the judicial system as he does, hell he might even should apologize to the CP5, but there is no logical reason he should apologize for the oped unless folks want to assert there was no violent crime in NYC.

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2019, 12:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As usual I'll just leave it as disagreeing with the Alliance.

A private citizen wrote an oped about violence in his city. the direction policing has gone in the last 10 years, and opined that people of all races were being assaulted. He further called upon Laws to be strengthened as a deterrent. He single out no race, no specific crime, and called for no action from civilians.

During the same time frame 5 boys are accused of an assault, and he is asked if he feels compassion for them (aka no death sentence) he said if guilty then he feels no compassion and provides examples of assaulters throwing their victims off roof tops.

Many years later the 5 boys he said he felt no compassion for if guilty were found not to be. And now that he's POTUS in some strange twist of logic he should apologize for the oped he wrote.

As I said: He should be ashamed to continue to question the judicial system as he does, hell he might even should apologize to the CP5, but there is no logical reason he should apologize for the oped unless folks want to assert there was no violent crime in NYC.

He wrote an oped promoting "police brutality" as a crime deterrent when in this case it was police brutality that caused innocent boys to confess to a crime they did not commit.  

You don't think that deserves an apology?

How about his demanding that the civil liberties of citizens be suspended just because of an increase in crime?  Do you agree with that?  Personally I think that is a very dangerous position to take.

[BmorePat87]

(06-20-2019, 12:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As usual I'll just leave it as disagreeing with the Alliance.

A private citizen wrote an oped about violence in his city. the direction policing has gone in the last 10 years, and opined that people of all races were being assaulted. He further called upon Laws to be strengthened as a deterrent. He single out no race, no specific crime, and called for no action from civilians.

During the same time frame 5 boys are accused of an assault, and he is asked if he feels compassion for them (aka no death sentence) he said if guilty then he feels no compassion and provides examples of assaulters throwing their victims off roof tops.

Many years later the 5 boys he said he felt no compassion for if guilty were found not to be. And now that he's POTUS in some strange twist of logic he should apologize for the oped he wrote.

As I said: He should be ashamed to continue to question the judicial system as he does, hell he might even should apologize to the CP5, but there is no logical reason he should apologize for the oped unless folks want to assert there was no violent crime in NYC.

He specifically referred to the rape in the ad and the confirmed on CNN a week later that the ad referenced it. 

[fredtoast]

(06-20-2019, 05:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He specifically referred to the rape in the ad and the confirmed on CNN a week later that the ad referenced it. 

Give it up.  He doesn't care.  He sees nothing wrong with endorsing police brutality as a crime deterrent even when police brutality caused these boys to confess to a crime they did no commit thus ending the investigation while the real rapist was free to rape again.

[*Nately120*]

(06-20-2019, 06:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Give it up.  He doesn't care.  He sees nothing wrong with endorsing police brutality as a crime deterrent even when police brutality caused these boys to confess to a crime they did no commit thus ending the investigation while the real rapist was free to rape again.

You'd think Trump would be on their side, seeing as he's also one of those types who admits to sexual misconduct that he didn't commit.