There is no need to "assume" what he meant. In the ad, he SPECIFICALLY tied the death penalty to murder. For all other serious crimes that they should be punished and made to suffer.

As in, "I want to hate these muggers and murderers, and when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes." Or as in, "Those who would murder our citizens and terrorize New York--bring back the death penalty." (Their is no comma between "citizens" and "and terrorize" so "terrorize" was a result of "murder[ing] our citizens".)

So, he clearly wanted the death penalty to apply to murder. He did not like that murder should be penalized merely with imprisonment. And the other criminals who were at that time (this was just before Giuliani cleaned up the horrific crime problem NY was having) should be made to suffer (not given the death penalty).

And there was no nod toward racism, he said that the New Yorkers who were suffering from the widespread crime in the city at the time were White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. And did not claim or hint that the criminals were all non-White. The Central Park Five were only a part of the whole, horrific, criminal predation of the city. And they were not convicted of murder. So they would not be his targets for the death penalty.

The claim that he asked for the death penalty for the Five is not found in the ad, nor is it implied. And the ad was not, in the main, merely about the Five. It was about what was happening in the city. The Five, whom he never specifically mentioned, were just part of the problem. The whole situation is what the ad was about, and the death penalty, in the ad, was specifically for murderers.

Way after that event and that ad, there is this attempt to characterize it as racist and calling for the death penalty for five innocent black children (at the time they were convicted, not innocent). Any "reasonable" reading of the ad would not find a claim that Trump called for the death penalty for the Five. Not only that, but he was being very clear in what he was talking about and to whom he was referring. If he had wanted to call for the execution of the Five, he could easily had said so. He was speaking about the overall, terrible crime that was gripping his city at that time. And he lamented that the police were not allowed to pursue crime as they should be, and that the death penalty would be the more proper and effective remedy for murder.

But the claim that he is a racist who wanted to execute five innocent black children is not about being reasonable. It is the typical, incessant, attempt to twist, interpret, conjecture, insinuate, characterize what Trump says and does into proving that Orange Man Bad. And as for him being a sloppy talker and writer, that is true about how he speaks. But writing is not extemporaneous, unscripted speech. His ad was not sloppy, was well and clearly written.

Flynn admitted his guilt also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oCy9K36cjU

What's this got to do with your false claim that Trump wanted to have the five executed?

That doesn't matter. If the FBI violated his rights along the way, his guilt doesn't matter. This is the first time you've ever heard of someone getting off because the government made a mistake?

I guess this is going too fast for you, sorry.

I would suggest that if you get arrested, you not use as a defense that the officer made you lie.
But you can try it, it does seem to work for Trump* courtiers.

He still does and his comment about them pleading guilty is very interesting when you look at it along with current events in the Flynn case.

Well, he didn't in the ad where you claim he did. But is there something other than the ad where he does? I'd like to just take your word for it, but . . . I don't know . . . your track record of misrepresentation just doesn't give me confidence. Please show something where he says that the Central Park Five should get the death penalty. Preciate it . . . thanks in advance.

Agreed I was just going to come back and say that.


Since then, he has repeatedly reiterated the guilty verdict of the men, even though their convictions were vacated. “They admitted they were guilty,” the then-candidate said in a CNN interview the month before the 2016 election. “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.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F's false statement was That Trump put an ad in the NYT to "call for the public execution of five black children". There was no such call, nor even a hint of it in that ad. He clearly, specifically, demonstrably said that the death penalty should be applied to murderers. The only time the death penalty or executing criminals was mentioned in the ad was in regard to those who kill or murder. He never even hinted that it should be applied to the crimes that the Central Park Five were convicted of.

I challenge you to point out where in his ad he said that the Five should be executed. It is a very serious charge to say that he made such a call. I have no doubt that you cannot find such a thing being said by Trump in that ad.

And now you blithely change the subject by saying that "Since then, he has repeatedly reiterated the guilty verdict of the men"--that is not the point. The point is, Pete F made a false statement that Trump called for their execution. And he claims that he still is saying that.

You have several times asked for a link when someone asserted something you questioned. Please show a link where Trump is asserting that the Five should be executed. And please show where in the original ad Trump said that they should be executed.

is it a wonder I and others ignore you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In other words, you cannot show anywhere that Trump called for the execution of the Central Park Five. Something like that should not be hard to find. It's a helluva thing to accuse someone of without a scintilla of evidence that he's said such a thing.

Yet, I'm the one that should be ignored.

because you don’t like being humiliated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they can’t show it, and god knows they won’t admit as much. again, when you are enslaved to your ideology, you reflexively defend the ideology even when the evidence doesn’t support doing so. they really don’t like being called on it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

post a copy of the ad up and people can talk about it.

The Reason I ignore you is I find you extremely boring. I haven't the word blithely used since I watched on the waterfront.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You already posted a copy of the ad. And you can't point out anywhere in the ad where Trump said that the Five should be executed.

You're always quick with an insult and that is why I think you're a #^&#^&#^&#^&. And while I find you a #^&#^&#^&#^& I find him extremely boring and his style of posting boring. I think one time I said that if I was ever introduced to him at a party I probably would walk away in about 30 seconds after saying nice to meet you but I have to go get a beer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't read it so post it up. And where exactly did I say he said they should be executed? What I said is the ad is written sloppily and people will assume that's what he meant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you posted the ad, detbuch asked where the ad said what you guys claimed it said, and instead of saying “it doesn’t say that, you’re right”, you insulted him. very mature.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when someone who still
uses the word “retard” thinks i'm a jerk, i take it as a compliment. it’s when you’re over the target that you take the most flak.

how about either pointing to where the ad says what was claimed, or just admit it doesn’t. i don’t see what’s so hard about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I told you numerous times I used the word spazz and retard to make fun of you trumplicans who had no problem with Trump up there mimicking a person with a disability. Did you not understand that the first three times I told you? Didn't you also say that you couldn't read the ad?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

even though by your own admission, trump
never said it, nor is there any evidence he ever made fun of such a person. there is irrefutable evidence obama has made fun of them, but you don’t care.

so you use a hateful term, to blame trump for doing something he’s never done, but which obama has done.

brilliant. simply brilliant. where’d they find you, Scotland Yard?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He most certainly made fun of the reporter if you want to deny it feel free to. It just shows what a deranged person you are. Any reasonable person knows that's exactly what he was doing. Why don't you just go back and read the post and that other thread and instead of regurgitating all the garbage you said previously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

my phone now
let’s me see the ad. detbuch is right. it doesn’t say what it was alleged to say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and that reporter didn’t have Downs. so why the word “retard”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know what he had so I care less. I know he had a disability. If that makes you feel better that he didn't have Downs knock yourself out. But the bottom line is he was mocking someone with a disability he knew the person had a disability yet did it. And that is the classy guy that you are on here defending day in and day out repeatedly. I guess that's a reflection of you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then when asked about it why doesn't he say I never said that the five kids should be executed?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't mocking the reporter's disability. He was mocking the reporter for, what he considered, backtracking on what he had earlier said.

if you don’t know what he had, why use the word “retard”? do you feel everyone who isn’t perfect, is a “retard”?

this gets better and better. man oh man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you couldn't read it, how could you tell what was in it?

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
"To be fair it doesn't say 'execute the central park five' but he conveniently it ran during or before the trial (I can't recall which)...."


PaulS: "No, he is a sloppy talker and writer. While it doesn't say bring back the death penalty, he mentions the park (and given the timing) any reasonable person would assume that is what he meant."

Originally Posted by Pete F.
"He still does [claim that Trump called for the Five to be executed] and his comment about them pleading guilty is very interesting when you look at it along with current events in the Flynn case."

PaulS: "Agreed I was just going to come back and say that."

No, you didn't "exactly" say that Trump called for the Five to be executed. And I'm not going to weasel word claim that "any reasonable person would assume that is what [you] meant." Nor, BTW, did Trump "exactly" say that. As a matter of fact, he specifically said that murderers should be executed--not that the Five should. The Five did not murder the biker, nor did he did claim that they did. The ad was mostly not about the Five, nor did he "exactly" even refer to them.

So my quibble is not really with you. It is with what Pete F claimed. And you did seem to back him up. If you do not "exactly" agree with Pete F, that's fine with me. If I am mistaken that you think Trump called for the Central Park Five to be executed, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. But if you think Pete F is right, that Trump did call for that, then I retract my apology and request that you back it up by pointing out where he "exactly" said (or even implied that he said) that the Five should be executed.

man oh man this gets better and better. Did you not read post 60? Somehow you didn't read it but you quoted it. Edit so post 60 was the fourth time I've told you the same thing and still for some reason it doesn't register.

And I have no problem with anyone who's not perfect. But let's remember that the Republicans are constantly talking about makers and takers so you have to assume that if someone is not perfect they probably don't contribute as much as the makers in this world and the Republicans consider them "takers" and therefore look down on them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a trouncing. an absolute trouncing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and yet, conservatives donate
more time to charity than liberals.

republicans look down on them...

how many times have you called
me out for making generalizations?

and we don’t look down on people
who need help. we look down on people who could be self sufficient but choose to be takers.

you’re having a rough couple of days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said earlier this is exactly why I think you're a #^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you claimed that detbuch was unfairly claiming you said trump
wanted the kids executed. then he very clearly pointed out that you said exactly that more than once.

if that’s not a trouncing, nothing is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

keep this up and you won't have any friends left

You change your argument from more money to time. But it's the same answer they donate the time to churches. So when my church wanted to make a small Chapel out of what was the garage and I helped demo it that would go towards donating time to a charity which in effect nobody else is going to use other than the parishioners.

I've heard it numerous times about makers and takers here and elsewhere but you're right it was a generalization I shouldn't have made. It doesn't change the fact that they look down on people who don't contribute as much as others.

I'm not having a rough time bc I think it's hilarious how you're so deranged that you spend day after day, night after night, week day, weekends defending Donald Trump. No matter how incompetent he is, no matter what he does, how stupid his statements. you will defend him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any here? Because I noticed that snarky people are originally looked at as funny and then after a while people just start to ignore them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not changing anything, you know the study showed that conservatives donate more money, more time, and more blood, than liberals.

you dismiss the money due to religion. why do they donate more time?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go back and re-read what you just quoted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul, your hatred of Trump has you using the word “retard” to describe everyone who has anything wrong with them. i say that’s indicative of having a very rough time. you disagree, you don’t think it’s a sign of anything.

and i’m the #^&#^&#^&#^& for suggesting you not throw that term around. but you know better.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device