Trump says man who helped convict Klan members in church bombing case is ‘soft on crime’ - Polidicks

[quote] Doug Jones, the Democratic Senate candidate in Alabama, made his name as a U.S. attorney in the late 1990s when he successfully prosecuted two members of the Ku Klux Klan for the notorious 1963 bombing of a Birmingham church that killed four black girls. The two men were convicted in cases that drew national attention; Bobby Frank Cherry died in prison 2004; Thomas Blanton remains incarcerated on a life sentence. So it came as a surprise to many that President Trump attacked the aspiring senator as “soft on crime.” “I can tell you for a fact we do not need somebody that’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military,” Trump said in a brief statement to reporters in which he seemed to tacitly endorse Republican candidate Roy Moore. “You don’t need somebody who’s soft on crime like Jones.” [/quote] [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/22/trump-says-man-who-helped-convict-klan-members-in-race-bombing-case-is-soft-on-crime/?utm_term=.9dda008a2c3c] source [/url] Meanwhile, Trump is soft on pedophiles and nazis. Not to mention he pardoned Joe.

[quote]“I can tell you for a fact we do not need somebody that’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad with the military,” Trump said[/quote] No we don't, so please resign

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52914374]No we don't, so please resign[/QUOTE] :godzing::godzing::godzing:

Doug Jones is the last hope for my state. Like if he fails to secure the senate seat, it just shows how far gone we are as a community.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;52914430]Doug Jones is the last hope for my state. Like if he fails to secure the senate seat, it just shows how far gone we are as a community.[/QUOTE] It's Alabama. Much as I hope he wins, it's a Republican stronghold. I would not be surprised if Moore managed to win.

its almost like what he says is diatribe without actually knowing anything about who he is talking about.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52914444]It's Alabama. Much as I hope he wins, it's a Republican stronghold. I would not be surprised if Moore managed to win.[/QUOTE] Like I constantly harp about: We aren't all fucking morons here. Huntsville and Birmingham aren't, for the most part.

Obviously he means soft on the right sort of crimes, like left-leaning young people protesting not getting life in prision.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52914444]It's Alabama. Much as I hope he wins, it's a Republican stronghold. I would not be surprised if Moore managed to win.[/QUOTE] The party already came out against him. I would say they would censure or expel him but seeing as how they all fell in line when trump miraculously won after they cut their support, things might be different

[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;52914567]Obviously he means soft on the right sort of crimes, like left-leaning young people protesting not getting life in prision.[/QUOTE] Soft on crime is something you say when you can't say something else that people will recognize as racist.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;52914575]The party already came out against him. I would say they would censure or expel him but seeing as how they all fell in line when trump miraculously won after they cut their support, things might be different[/QUOTE] Trump has already come out in Moore's defense, if he wins his vote then the rest of the party will fall in line. If any of them actually cared about doing the right thing they probably wouldn't have become a Republican in the first place.

What if we do something like the cultural revolution (one very very tiny aspect of it, not the rest of it) and start getting young liberals to move out into the countryside to outweigh the Republicans a bit?

[QUOTE=Megadave;52915277]What if we do something like the cultural revolution (one very very tiny aspect of it, not the rest of it) and start getting young liberals to move out into the countryside to outweigh the Republicans a bit?[/QUOTE] because they won't survive without their frappes and wifi

[QUOTE=Megadave;52915277]What if we do something like the cultural revolution (one very very tiny aspect of it, not the rest of it) and start getting young liberals to move out into the countryside to outweigh the Republicans a bit?[/QUOTE] No good idea has ever started with "what if we do something like the cultural revolution"

[QUOTE=Megadave;52915277]What if we do something like the cultural revolution (one very very tiny aspect of it, not the rest of it) and start getting young liberals to move out into the countryside to outweigh the Republicans a bit?[/QUOTE] It ain't just numbers that keep Red States red, it's gerrymandering.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52915471]It ain't just numbers that keep Red States red, it's gerrymandering.[/QUOTE] federal senate races cant be gerrymandered. There is more to losing senate races than gerrymandering.

Just going to point out, if were going to be this simple and think Doug Jones prosecuting KKK members is what makes him honorable, one only has to acknowledge that he also represented [url=http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/southunionstreet/2017/10/29/fights-his-life-doug-jones-journey-fairfield-u-s-senate-race/802285001/]individuals[/url] like Tom Posey who had ties to the [url=http://www.newsweek.com/my-life-white-supremacist-475032]KKK.[/url] And that actually speaks to being a competent lawyer that he can atleast be impartial, but you probably wouldn't like his portfolio as a whole. Even though though it shouldn't matter who he has represented in the past for the most part. The talking point is to see what his overall views and actions are instead of tunnel visioning on just who he represented. Relevant excerpts from the articles here: [quote=Montgomery Advertiser/USA Today]Jones had a diverse clientele, including Tom Posey, a Decatur man who supplied the Contras in Nicaragua and who faced charges (ultimately dropped) of violating the U.S. Neutrality Act. But he began appearing in newspaper clips in the late 80s chiefly for defending state politicians facing different accusations, a list that eventually included former Gov. Don Siegelman. Jones represented Siegelman in different cases after the governor left office, though he was unavailable to represent the governor in the 2006 trial that led to Siegelman’s conviction on bribery and obstruction of justice charges. Jones later testified before a U.S. House panel in 2007 questioning whether Washington officials restarted a prosecution of Siegelman that he said appeared to be winding down in 2004. (Local prosecutors have denied this.) Speaking of his criminal defense career, Jones said “the system only works when there are good lawyers on both sides.”[/quote] [quote=Newsweek]At the behest of his FBI handlers, Matthews—a wire often down his pants and a pistol in his shoulder holster—traveled across the country with Posey and others, attending dance parties with the Ku Klux Klan, selling weapons at truck stops and gas stations, sitting in church pews with would-be abortion-clinic bombers, and becoming a regular at gun shows and in paramilitary compounds. Extremist leaders were his frequent guests, sometimes staying the night, and hosted him when he traveled from home. “That’s how well trusted I was. We was one big happy family,” Matthews recalls. ... As Matthews was soon to learn, the FBI layered covert intrigue upon covert intrigue. In early 1992, Matthews says he and Posey traveled to Austin, Texas, to meet a former Klan leader and suspected member of a locally based paramilitary group, the Texas Reserve Militia (TRM). The FBI was investigating the TRM for allegedly laundering money through a Texas gun shop, paying off local law enforcement, purchasing stolen weapons from a military base, attempting to blow up a National Guard convoy in Alabama, and threatening to kill two FBI agents. The suspected TRM member brought along a Vietnam veteran called Dave, an unremarkable-looking man in a green bomber jacket, fashionable among skinheads at the time. Matthews recalls that they met in a small, musty hotel room on the outskirts of the city, and for a few hours kicked back and talked about the movement. Posey went on about the New World Order, which to extremists like him meant the threat of global takeover by an assortment of international organizations including banks, the United Nations, and other elite institutions. Dave said he was the leader of a group of armored-car robbers who were using the proceeds of their exploits to fund the movement. “We were feeling each other out,” Matthews says. “[Dave] let us know there was money available.” ...[/quote]

So does that mean he's soft on crime? Or is he just soft on "crimes" as they are designated by Moore?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52915731]Just going to point out, if were going to be this simple and think Doug Jones prosecuting KKK members is what makes him honorable, one only has to acknowledge that he also represented [URL="http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/southunionstreet/2017/10/29/fights-his-life-doug-jones-journey-fairfield-u-s-senate-race/802285001/"]individuals[/URL] like Tom Posey who had ties to the [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/my-life-white-supremacist-475032"]KKK.[/URL] And that actually speaks to being a competent lawyer that he can atleast be impartial, but you probably wouldn't like his portfolio as a whole. Even though though it shouldn't matter who he has represented in the past for the most part. The talking point is to see what his overall views and actions are instead of tunnel visioning on just who he represented. [/QUOTE] Uh, the talking point is that he is weak on crime, which is absolutely unsubstantiated horseshit. The fact that he defended alleged criminals as a criminal defense lawyer is meaningless. [editline]22nd November 2017[/editline] Reading both articles makes it seem like he is far more qualified a politician than Trump was when he was elected, especially when it comes to crime.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52915737]So does that mean he's soft on crime? Or is he just soft on "crimes" as they are designated by Moore?[/QUOTE] Its a code phrase racists use. When the far right says "soft on crime," they mean "soft on niggers."

[QUOTE=Tudd;52915731]Just going to point out, if were going to be this simple and think Doug Jones prosecuting KKK members is what makes him honorable, one only has to acknowledge that he also represented [url=http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/southunionstreet/2017/10/29/fights-his-life-doug-jones-journey-fairfield-u-s-senate-race/802285001/]individuals[/url] like Tom Posey who had ties to the [url=http://www.newsweek.com/my-life-white-supremacist-475032]KKK.[/url] And that actually speaks to being a competent lawyer that he can atleast be impartial, but you probably wouldn't like his portfolio as a whole. Even though though it shouldn't matter who he has represented in the past for the most part. The talking point is to see what his overall views and actions are instead of tunnel visioning on just who he represented. Relevant excerpts from the articles here:[/QUOTE] Let me get this straight [B] A. "If you think prosecuting KKK members makes Doug Jones honorable, know he defended a man with ties to the KKK"[/B] The implication is crystal clear: if prosecuting Klan members = honorable, defending one = not honorable. Note: no one here said shit about honor, this is coming entirely from you. [B]B. "That actually speaks to him being a competent lawyer who can be impartial"[/B] Already, this contradicts point A where you try to "debunk" his honor. This could've passed for a clarification of that point, if it wasn't so obvious you were trying to frame A as a bad thing. This is you trying to insulate yourself from having this argument used against you. [B]C. "But you probably wouldn't like his portfolio as a whole. It shouldn't matter who he has represented for the most part, we should see what his overall views and actions are instead of tunnel visioning"[/B] Wait. You made point A and B based on individuals he represented. But now you're saying that making judgments based on these individuals is bad, because it shows a degree of tunnel vision. When you just did that. Which is it? [B]Conclusion:[/B] If someone praises Jones for going after KKK members? Well they're wrong, he defended one too. Oh, but that makes him impartial. Wait, no, you can't say that, focusing on individuals he represented is tunnel vision, you need to look at his track record as a whole. So here's an article about his track record, and here's an article that never mentions Jones, and is instead... about one of the individuals he represented. Which doesn't matter. Except when I say it does. You seem to be courting a whole bunch of different opinions here, regardless of how much they contradict each other. Because by covering every angle, you can't be held accountable for any of your stances, and always have a nice, comfy spot of plausible deniability to back into. Personally, I think the funniest part is that you obviously picked point A, which is the most contradictory of them, because that's the narrative Fox News is pushing [img]https://puu.sh/ys4la/7030966260.jpg[/img] I guess revving up the Anti-Doug machine is all you can do when the alternative is defending Roy "let me in the mall, gotta grope 'em all" Moore