Poor Mrs Trump

The evidence supported and the trial established that Martin was on top of zim battering him when he was shot.

Do you dispute that? Or are you ignoring it?

The evidence in the trial supported no such thing. Zimmerman's so called wounds were all found to be minor. There was even some question that they could have been self inflicted.

I followed the trial so yes, I do dispute your statement.
Even members of the jury admitted they thought Zimmerman was guilty but that the state simply had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659


Martin had no police record at all. Here's Zimmerman's:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/18/list-george-zimmerman-past-run-ins-with-law.html

He was a thug then and he's still acting like one today.

PkrBum wrote:

The evidence supported and the trial established that Martin was on top of zim battering him when he was shot.

Do you dispute that? Or are you ignoring it?

    It's like ignoring brown charging and being on top/pounding on then Officer Lewis.....Even today, there are some of the enlightened that are still saying...hands up don't shoot...even though the evidence proved the opposite...Attempting to minimize....justify the thug/criminal actions of brown is disgusting...he was living the thug life and he paid the ultimate price for his behavior....

To continue to try and get a different result in the martin case is wishful thinking...the evidence supported the account of zimmerman and unfortunately for some they didn't get the result for an agenda to start/continue with the rhetoric that did nothing to solve any of the problems and to blame anyone and anything except for those responsible....

So, Zimmerman went through the criminal justice process and was found not guilty. Not to be persuaded by that simple fact progressives insist they know more than the majority of the jury and judge because "they watched the trial on TV"......justice wasn't served because the progressives didn't get the result THEY wanted. Their idea of justice is warped.

You just can't make this stuff up!!!!

nochain wrote:

So, Zimmerman went through the criminal justice process and was found not guilty. Not to be persuaded by that simple fact progressives insist they know more than the majority of the jury and judge because "they watched the trial on TV"......justice wasn't served  because the progressives didn't get the result THEY wanted. Their idea of justice is warped.

You just can't make this stuff up!!!!

Thankfully....sometimes there are citizens/judges that actually base their opinions/verdicts on facts/evidence rather than those that ignore facts/evidence for political agendas/correctness....Some have gotten so bad they pronounce judgement prior to initial investigations being concluded let alone a trial....But what would you expect from a bunch that daily shows nothing but contempt for laws....

The facts are that the justice system does not always work, especially for African Americans.  According to your theory that we have to accept a jury verdict just because it was handed down,  OJ was innocent. The juice never even had a pair of those "ugly ass" shoes that he wore when he murdered Nicole. Never matter that there were over 50 photos of him wearing them.

When I see a black child shot by a policeman within 1.5 seconds of the time the cop stops his car in a city park, and the child is not armed, I don't truly care what verdict a jury or a judge hands down. Like I said, I believe my own eyes. And yes, I do have contempt for any judge or jury who would not hold a policeman responsible for that kind of action.
That stuff has been going on for years but has all hit the fan now because of cell phone cameras.
You are the one who refuses to believe what he sees and I suspect I know exactly why.

We all know you are a streetwise, eagle-eyed super-hero who can instantly discern whether a life size toy gun is real or not from 5,000 yards. You armchair quarterbacks with your 20-20 hindsight gag me.

nochain wrote:

We all know you are a streetwise, eagle-eyed super-hero who can instantly discern whether a life size toy gun is real or not from 5,000 yards. You armchair quarterbacks with your 20-20 hindsight gag me.

Too much TV.... where officers can shoot the gun out of the hand of a suspect from 300 yards with 100 innocent bystanders in the background and NO ONE gets hurt including the thug(s)....Remember the old westerns where a bad guy at the top of a hill can't hit anything with a rifle and the good guy shoots a pistol from the bottom of the hill and picks'em off....Again, some are so reality tv oriented they are unable to comprehend that from real life situations...

Would you like to count the times during this 911 call that the caller said the guy probably had a "fake gun?" or should I count them for you? It's at least 3. The boy was "sitting on a swing" and was "outside the youth center."  Could that have been a clue about his possible age? It would to any thinking person.
The man who called 911 was so scared that he continued to sit in the same park where the boy was playing  while he phoned 911. He didn't get up and leave during the call. Yeah, he was real scared.
Yet the brilliant cop decided in 1.5 actual seconds of stopping his car that the gun was real and he needed to "shoot to kill" the suspect.

Those are facts. Here's the 911 call. Count the times the civilian said it's probably a fake gun:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tamir-rice-911-call-20141126-htmlstory.html

When I was 12 I still played with toy guns too and I'll bet so did you. My brothers and I played outside our yard, in neighbor's yards and in the street. No cop in the 1950's was stupid enough to assume our toys were real.
Or no cop back then was paranoid enough to assume they were real.
Or maybe we were just white.

And by the way, I don't watch reality TV.

Eddard wrote:

Nobody rigged the primary system. There was talk in e-mails about ways to villify Sanders, like making his religion an issue. Those things didn't happen. Hillary Clinton never made them an issue and neither did the Democratic party.
Hillary Clinton got 3 million more  votes in the Democratic primaries than Bernie Sanders.

That's actual votes, not delegates or super delegates. No one paid me or forced me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Trayveon Martin was not a thug. He had no criminal record at all. He was armed with a package of gummy bears and George Zimmerman was armed with a pistol.  That's  the thug who murdered him. Zimmerman did have charges against him both before and after he killed Trayveon. He's proven what a jerk he is ever since he got freed from jail.
You're the one who doesn't believe what his eyes and ears tell him, not me.

Mentioning over and over about 'eyes and ears'.....perhaps a checkup is in order because the facts/evidence in the case don't support the argument being made....It's ridiculous to continue to re-try the tm case...the facts are what they are no matter how many attempts are made to prove otherwise....And, PLEASE knock off the deflections....NO ONE here has ever posted about how great a citizen...role model...human being that zimmerman is or was at the time....being a 'jerk' doesn't mean he's a murderer so that entire premise is foolish....

OMG!!!!! 'Nobody rigged the primary system'.. The chairperson was working against a candidate while openly supporting and making moves to make sure hrc was protected...So DWS didn't need to resign as chairperson?...Bernie caught them and THEY apologized for their actions...comments....e-mails...There was a reason that bernieites were pissed and felt backstabbed....Amazing that even when it's admitted...two weeks later some attempt to sell revisionist history that 'nobody rigged the primary system'....

Give me the evidence that she rigged the system. We are talking about Schultz here, by the way, and not Hillary Clinton. There's not been any accusation that Clinton had anything to do with it. Harry Reid did some shenanigans in his own state of Nevada, but that's it. One state, not the whole primaries.
There is evidence that DWS conspired to send out negative information on Bernie, but there's no evidence that the plan was followed through on.
The mainstream media has not reported that the system was rigged, so how do you know it was? Do you have some inside information that Fox news would love to have? I'm sure they would gladly pay you if you did.
Were votes changed? Were democrats denied the right to vote in Bernie heavy areas? Were polls closed early?
Come on. Inquiring minds want to know.

Eddard wrote:

Give me the evidence that she rigged the system. We are talking about Schultz here, by the way, and not Hillary Clinton. There's not been any accusation that Clinton had anything to do with it. Harry Reid did some shenanigans in his own state of Nevada, but that's it. One state, not the whole primaries.
There is evidence that DWS conspired to send out negative information on Bernie, but there's no evidence that the plan was followed through on.
The mainstream media has not reported that the system was rigged, so how do you know it was? Do you have some inside information that Fox news would love to have? I'm sure they would gladly pay you if you did.
Were votes changed? Were democrats denied the right to vote in Bernie heavy areas? Were polls closed early?
Come on. Inquiring minds want to know.

That was 'nochain' posting as me AGAIN!...

Yeah, I suppose that's why neither of you have any evidence to report.
The title is right though, Poor Mrs Trump.
She'll be so angry when Donald loses she'll divorce him. He'll file another bankruptcy to avoid her alimony and the poor thing will have to go out and pose butt naked on a fake fur rug again.

What an embarrassing situation for her.