Posts made by royalcrown89

@pppucci:

In all fairness to Frederick and Trump, the NYC police and Mayor Bloomberg refused to settle the case for 12 years because they asserted that the five must have been accomplices to the original crime.  They certainly were not upstanding members of the community, but they were jailed for a crime they did not commit.  For those of you who are fans of the death penalty, they might have been executed before they were exonerated, which would have been a real tragedy

The president still holds the belief that they should be executed to this day. He has not walked back his position and last year, he doubled-down on it. Election or not, he is on the record calling for the execution of five innocent Americans. He has the backing of our current Attorney General. Once again, this is indefensible. Am I missing something? Did he walk back his statements or even apologize for currently holding the belief? How is it okay for a sitting U.S. president to call for the executions of people who were exonerated? What happens if he decides to collude with some hate group or makes a top secret order to have those men killed? This president has no credibility whatsoever and he is loyal to no one, not even himself. This is quite scary. If anything happens to any of those men, he should be the prime suspect since he's on the record calling for their deaths.

Like I said, this is indefensible. All five were exonerated of EVERYTHING INVOLVING THE CASE. Our president has called for the deaths of five innocent men who spent years of their lives in prison for something they did NOT do. Whether they were coerced into confessing by crooked cops is beyond the fact. Whether the judge truly believed their pleas and handed down his honest sentencing is beyond the fact. The problems were corrected by releasing the men and by settling the wrongful convictions lawsuit. What's screwed up about this is our president STILL WANTS THEM DEAD and has called the settlement a "disgrace."

Also, how is this fake news? Show me evidence that the president has walked back his statements of wanting five innocent men executed. Do you have that evidence, Frederick?

@pppucci:

This issue was brought up several times during the campaign.  No one seemed to care….

No one cared because then-candidate now president #45 said so many outrageous things, real instances of his disgusting behavior like this one got ignored by the majority of the population. So many were focused on "pizza restaurant child prostitution rings" and "Podesta's emails." I'll never let this go because he is now president and he (a) has not apologized for the disgusting things he's said about these five innocent men and (b) is a sitting U.S. President that still holds the belief that five innocent men should be executed with the backing of a sitting Attorney General. Until there is an apology or at least a walking back of his disgusting claims and comments related to this situation, I and others will continue to call it out. I'm glad the documentary is being made and I hope they shine the right amount of light on the president's comments and the belief he still currently holds. Like I said, it's indefensible.

@pppucci:

Unless he actually does go out on 5th avenue and shoot someone, he won't be impeached by this Congress. If the Democrats win back the House in 2018, that is a different story.  Even under those circumstances, he would never be convicted in the Senate.67 Senators would have to vote to convict, a very high bar indeed.

I believe the Republicans will abandon him if his unpopularity brings them down far enough. There will come a point where they no longer defend him out of fear that they will lose everything.

The President of the United States still believes the Central Park Five–-5 exonerated men who spent years in prison for a crime they did not commit as teenagers---deserve to be executed and has continuously called their wrongful conviction settlement a "disgrace." This is disgusting and indefensible. There is a new documentary film being made about this situation and it will focus on the president's continuing fight against these five innocent men. The current Attorney General backs up this disgusting opinion by our president. How can anyone support the condemnation of innocent men who were wrongfully convicted for a crime they had absolutely nothing to do with? #45's supporters want us to view him as an honorable man and someone deserving of the presidency, yet he supports the idea that five innocent men should be executed or imprisoned for life for something they did not do. Further, he calls their wrongful conviction settlement a "disgrace." They were wrongfully convicted and lost years of their lives because of a wrongful conviction. Forensic evidence has exonerated them. Why does our president and his Attorney General believe otherwise and will they do something to harm the lives of these five innocent men?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/central-park-five-donald-trump-jogger-rape-case-new-york
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/politics/reality-check-donald-trump-central-park-5/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/21/donald-trump-central-park-5_n_5517784.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/08/donald-trumps-doubling-down-on-the-central-park-five-reflects-a-bigger-problem/
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/donald-trump-central-park-settlement-disgrace-article-1.1838467
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/sen-sessions-praises-donald-trump-central-park-5-controversy-article-1.2756902
http://uproxx.com/news/donald-trump-central-park-five/

Wow, didn't think I'd see one of my old threads pop back up  :cheers: I still believe he'll be impeached because of the reasons I listed. Nothing has really changed. All of this "nothing burger" talk does nothing to answer serious questions like: (1) Why were high-ranking officials from the president's campaign in direct conversation with Russian officials? (2) Why did those high-ranking campaign officials LIE about their conversations with the Russians? (3) How come the president won't provide evidence that definitely proves there were no illegal exchanges of money and/or information with any Russian officials by releasing his tax returns or documentation of where he received certain information? (4) Why is the president going against our very own intelligence agencies? (5) Why is the president quietly fighting recent sanctions against Russia passed unanimously by the Senate and currently being stalled in the House? Most of the questions are easy to squash, yet the president will not cooperate with the investigations to put an end to those questions. Why is that? If most of these questions could be tackled by him simply releasing his tax returns, then why won't he release them? If most of these questions could be tackled by him simply stating why he and those who work around him lied about previous interactions with Russians, then why not simply state the reasons for lying?

I have long said there has been no evidence of collusion and I still hold that belief. Nothing has been proven yet; however, because of the president's actions, nothing has been ruled out. If the president has nothing to hide, why not cooperate and prove he has nothing to hide?

@aadam101:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the President of the United States.  She never will be.  She is not a threat to you any longer.  You don't have to be afraid of her anymore.  That is all.

:true: Bringing her up in an argument to justify the current president's actions severely weakens the argument. How can someone justify a president's actions by asking, "But what about the candidate who lost during the election that has now been over for 8 months?" It's ridiculous and is not a valid argument at this point. Super PAC does not equal presidential power and influence. In my opinion, we have a corrupt president and his name is not Hillary Clinton.

@pppucci:

I did a little research on how Reputation Power is calculated.  You are awarded points for new topics and replies, as well as Upvotes, downvotes and hearts.  But the points awarded by voting is multiplied by the voter's reputation power.  Since the "Team Liberal" has little to no reputation power, the only thing harmed by the downvoting is the user's ego.

Here is what Popper said back in 2014:
" Regarding the "heart" voting up/down by members influenced by the voter's power, it seems the number of reputation points gets increased/reduced by the voters reputation power (e.g. if I vote with a current power of 160, I'll add 160 points to the member who's post I voted to like, at least his power increases by 3)."

https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=24387.msg114158#msg114158

And for some of us, it was a deliberate effort of users who disagreed with us clicking on the heart below our name and downgrading our reputation sometimes more than once within the same day to take away our reputation power. I've taken screenshots before of a user doing that to me, day by day and sometimes in the same day downgrading my reputation power. Meanwhile, they're increasing each other's reputation power  ::)

This is the second time I've caught this kind of behavior.

@pppucci:

Did I miss something?  Did this board suddenly change into one focused on discussing reputation power, up-voting and down-voting.  Who Cares? I guess we know who.  I don't.  Let's talk politics.
If you don't want to discuss politics and debate world issues, go to another board to show off your big green bars.
:xpl:

:true: How about instead of posting about these things, we just talk to each other through our inboxes whenever we see each other do something bogus? Starting today, I will message someone privately if I have a problem with the way they are behaving on here. We're talking at each other instead of with each other and that's not solving anything.

All this shows is that many of us would prefer to agree or disagree using the thumbs up and thumbs down icons than waste time debating with people who name-call most of the time. Why should we get into pointless discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with politics that are somehow allowed to be put in the P&D section? Mhorndisk, you have more thumbs down from me because your posts (1) usually have nothing to do with politics, (2) are 100% uncivil and filled with childish name-calling, (3) are based in often times debunked, unproven or outlandish conspiracy theories, and (4) are so awful that you are given a WARNING time after time. I know for myself, I do not go directly into your posts and automatically give a thumbs down, I read what you write. I do the same with Frederick and Raphjd, I read their posts before giving a thumbs up, a thumbs down or leaving the post alone. There have been posts where I've agreed with them and have actually given them thumbs up, especially whenever they criticize Facebook and YouTube or call out the left for being silent on its violence in relation to free speech. If your post is a direct deflection, consists of mass generalizations, makes wholly irrational arguments, is 100% uncivil in tone, and makes no real effort to engage in an adult conversation then you should not be surprised to get a thumbs down.

There has been zero evidence of collusion or any wrongdoing on #45's behalf, yet he's constantly trying to discredit the investigations that are ongoing. Russia meddled in our 2016 election, as they've done in other countries. The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats are actually on the same page with respect to that fact. Our president and some of his cabinet members (with the exception of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley) are still pushing back against something that not only both parties have reached consensus on, but so has the overwhelming majority of Americans. The American president is going against the overwhelming majority of the American people on this issue. No evidence has been provided showing he did anything wrong, yet he is going against the very people he is supposed to represent. Why is he doing this and how long does he think he has before this whole thing goes deeper?

I agree 100% with the OP. The conservatives (and anti-liberals) either do not know how to defend their arguments/positions or are solely on here to troll liberals. I do not know which; hence, why I'm here asking now. I have defended my arguments/positions with sound logic without constant name-calling or other childish means. I have many times called out the problems–-often times dangerous---within the liberal communities. Where is it on the other side? Where is the self-criticism of the other side on here? It's extremely rare for some of you to (a) criticize the president and (b) criticize the actions of those on the right just as rare as it is for you to defend the president and the actions of those on the right. Do you truly believe what you say or are you only saying it to be a troll? One of the objectives in my call for more civility was to stop assuming bad intentions on the behalf of those you disagree with; therefore, the fact that I am indeed asking what your intentions are is proof that I am truly trying to get to the crux of this problem. I am not assuming the worst, I am asking why is there a lack of effort on the other side to defend their beliefs without constant name-calling and childishness and without deflecting to the problems of the other side.

President Obama is not being considered for another Nobel Peace Prize. It's something the alt-right has come up with to try to distract us from our current president's historical low approval, and it's sad.

@mhorndisk:

When you guys don't get your way, you always play victim. That's what all these super sad posts are projecting. You didn't have any criticism of Kathy Griffin when she was promoting violence, not even when she got fired! You're not PRO-civility. Not even a little bit. You're terrible actors and we're not falling for it.

My call for civility was genuine and I called for a change on behalf of EVERYONE, including myself. I admitted that I was a part of the problem many times in this thread. I did criticize Kathy Griffin for what she did, as did many others who support the left on here did. We also supported the fact that she was FIRED for what she did. The fact is, I'm one of the only people on the left here who constantly calls out the left's violence that the media won't call out. I praised a Wisconsin Republican bill aimed at curbing that violence on college campuses. You have no idea what you are talking about mhorndisk. You're the one constantly posting spam on here. You're the one writing 7 replies to yourself in a row and making multiple threads about the same exact topic. You're also the one that has been warned because of your disgusting language. So tell me again, which one of us is pro-civility and which one isn't?

Why is this thread still here? It was not implied in the first post that there's a connection between the topic and politics; therefore, it belongs in rants & raves. Then the initial post is followed by pointless other posts by the same poster, the original poster. This is what so many of us are complaining about. This is pointless spam that does not belong in this section. Raphjd, you've already moved one irrelevant topic to rants & raves. This one needs to go, too. It's time to put an end to this madness.

Yes, a lot of the posts on here need to be moved to rants & raves. Topics like, "NWO can suck my dick" and "Obama a Satanic Whore" need to be moved to rants & raves immediately. There is no way we can have meaningful debate with a topics that have such toxic titles. How can we expect others on this site to want to participate in the Politics & Debate forum when it's filled with spam about nonsense? It would be okay if it was just one time but mhorndisk is posting like ten topics based on the same thing in the same day, and then he's constantly replying to himself to drown out other topics. It's becoming too much and something definitely needs to be done. Should we appeal to someone higher up?? I still want to participate here but how can we with this level of toxicity?

@pppucci:

And some are trying not only to own the thread, but own the entire board as well. They are doing this not only by the number of posts and self-replies, but by affecting the tone of the entire board with each of their "contributions." They seem to have bullied most users away.  Reasonable people don't have time for this shit.

Yes, the toxicity level has me on the verge of never participating in this thread again. My call for civility calmed things down for a little while but now the childishness is back in full force. It's really sad and raphjd needs to do something about this. I've taken up for him for being a decent moderator and keeping his moderating separate from his personal views, but something needs to be done about the multiple same-topic threads started by the same person (mhorndisk) and then the multiple self-replying to those topics by that same person (mhorndisk).

@pppucci:

@raphjd:

@wafflez:

Should a rule be added regarding spamming threads/posts? I'm seen one user post multiple times in a row on the same thread when he could have modified the original post.

If possible, perhaps the forum system can be changed so that posts are merged if they are both by the same user and posted one after another.

That would be nice.

Maybe I'll have to start editing threads for this.

I started my own thread on this.  https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=51089.0
I think it is too much for the moderator to be editing multiple posts by the same user before others can reply, but there should be some guidelines put into place and enforced. Like giving them a time-out if they repeatedly violate the guidelines after several warnings.  Even one reply might be permissible for clarification but 3, 3 and 5 in a row is just ridiculous.

I agree, I've also seen posts where there's between 3 and 7 replies in a row by the very person who started the thread, which is borderline outrageous. I back up the call for more guidelines put into place and enforced on this issue.

@brianboru72:

Aside from being busy with work lately, it's become apparent to me that there's very little interest in meeting at some sort of middle ground specially with some of those active posters here.

I well and truly applaud your attempts at civility royal- however it's apparent to anyone who takes the time to read responses here just which posters aren't interested in civil discourse and just want to toss insults around to puff up their lack of substance.  :laugh:
Also- I find it very suspicious how the manipulation of forum reputation has gone in a very one-sided direction- quite the opposite of what people upvote and downvote. Maybe there's something to look into there, I'll leave it to admin like raph to look into.

More power to you royal, and those of you who still continue to engage in a more or less civil manner. Maybe when I've got more time I'll engage here again. Pax!  ;D

Yeah, I'm probably going to be spending less time on here as well. It is VERY obvious who is willing to be more civil and who isn't at this point. Raphjd still deflects every now and then but he's not spamming like some of the others still are and he has been enforcing the main rules pretty fairly. At least we can say we tried to change the course of this forum so that everyone, regardless of party/ideological affiliation, can support their views and defend their arguments in a civil manner. It was never about shaming people or taking sides, it truly was just about supporting your views and defending your arguments without the constant childishness, flaming and spamming. It may change but if not, like I said, at least an effort was made. I feel good about making that effort too  :cheers:

@raphjd:

Tommy Sotomayor did a good video on this.

Terence Williams did a great video on how blacks hate the police, but they are the first ones they call when they have problems.   Once the police arrive, blacks refuse to cooperate and get hostile toward the police because they didn't prevent the crime.

Exactly, Tommy Sotomayor and Terence Williams are both black and both have different views because black people are capable of having different views of things. Contrary to your statements that one black person speaks for our entire race; we actually are capable of breaking from the hive-mind mentality on specific issues. I actually agree with some of the things Tommy Sotomayor says on YouTube. I've also seen first hand what happens when you criticize BLM on Facebook because my brother's Facebook account was disabled and still is just because he criticized BLM and he didn't even use bad language when he criticized them. He was called anti-black and people who didn't even know him reported him until Facebook disabled his account. I understand what you are saying and to some degree, I do agree with you.

However, there are deep reasons why we have such a bad relationship with the police and until those reasons are properly addressed and corrected, the relationship will continue to be bad. The police can start by not murdering people who do call them for help. They can also start by protecting those who do wish to help them serve the community. There needs to be more transparency. There needs to be more accountability for wrongdoing. If you're a police officer and you enter a house looking for a drug dealer or someone with an outstanding warrant and just begin shooting and murder a little innocent child in her bedroom, you need to go to prison. Unless that child was awake and threatening to shoot you with a gun, you have no reasons for firing into her bedroom. That happened to Aiyana Stanley-Jones. Guess what? No one would convict the officer who murdered her.