# Trump voters explain themselves **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 4, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307 "2017-01-04T13:50:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/223 "2017-01-11T19:33:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reality is that other guy had his DNA in the scene of the crime, not the 5 that the police got confessions that they had raped her or assaulted. The reality is that it was always thought to be a gang attack with multiple participants. You’re not going to find DNA from all participants from such an attack, even if you find it from one. In the original confessions, one of the accused claimed the guy who did the actual rape was “a Puerto Rican kid with a hoodie”, a description which fit Matias Reyes. > [@](#): > > Well, the 5 are more likely to be innocent of the rape or assault they allegedly committed. BTW about the Armstrong report it is clear that was not given too much validity as it did not generate any other accusations and in the end it had to resort of just declaring that “it was probable” but that did not work much in the courts nor it could be considered evidence. I agree. I think it’s probable that these kids were involved but that Reyes was the only (or primary) rapist. Inconclusive to be sure, but not scientific evidence of innocence either. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/224 "2017-01-11T19:53:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The reality is that it was always thought to be a gang attack with multiple participants. You’re not going to find DNA from all participants from such an attack, even if you find it from one. Not so, the term you are missing is commingled. And the issue here is that no other was found. BTW the perpetrator (who left the DNA) was not really pointed at by any of the ones that were allegedly there. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In the original confessions, one of the accused claimed the guy who did the actual rape was “a Puerto Rican kid with a hoodie”, a description which fit Matias Reyes. Straw grasped identified. > **[Central Park jogger case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case)** > > The Central Park jogger case (sometimes termed the Central Park Five case) was a criminal case concerning the assault and rape of Trisha Meili, a woman in Central Park in Manhattan, New York, on April 19, 1989. On the night of the attack, dozens of teenagers had entered the park, and there were reports of muggings and physical assaults. > Six teenagers were indicted in relation to the Meili assault. Charges against one, Steven Lopez, were dropped after Lopez pleaded guilty to a different assaul... > [@](#): > > He [Matias Reyes] provided a detailed account of the attack, details of which were corroborated by other evidence.[25] The DNA evidence confirmed his participation in the rape, identifying him as the sole contributor of the semen found in and on the victim “to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people”.[25] DNA analysis of the strands of hair found in Richardson’s underpants established that the hair did not belong to the victim.[58] The victim had been tied up with her T-shirt in a distinctive fashion that Reyes used again on later victims.[25] Reyes was not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had passed, and thus his admissions did not place him at further risk.[42][59] Reyes had been convicted of raping four other women and killing one of them, and a defense psychiatrist in his trial had concluded that Reyes was not capable of telling the truth.[42] Reyes’s confession, plus DNA evidence confirming his participation in the rape, led the district attorney’s office to recommend vacating the convictions of the defendants originally found guilty and sentenced to prison. Supporters of the five defendants again claimed their confessions had been coerced. An examination of the inconsistencies between their confessions led the prosecutor to question the veracity of their confessions. The point here is that besides giving details about the crime scene, Matias AFAIK did not point at any other of the 5. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I agree. I think it’s probable that these kids were involved but that Reyes was the only (or primary) rapist. Inconclusive to be sure, but not scientific evidence of innocence either. No good evidence then to declare them guilty, and again the confession of Reyes plus the DNA pointed to more evidence that the original testimonies should be dismissed. (And there it went the Puerto Rican with a hoodie) ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/225 "2017-01-11T20:03:17Z")
I’m not sure what point you think you’re making with all this. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/226 "2017-01-11T20:09:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > So your claim is that the lack of DNA evidence is “_evidence of their innocence [which] is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time_”? So any time someone is accused of assaulting someone, sexually or otherwise, and there’s no DNA evidence, that they need to be found innocent because “_the evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time_”? Well, but that’s not what I said. There was DNA evidence. That DNA evidence did not match any of those accused. It did match another person who was not accused. If you have no physical evidence that someone committed a crime, as well as evidence that someone else DID commit the crime, I would say that that is pretty good evidence that the first party is innocent. > [@](#): > > If you ask me, this is much much sillier and more ignorant than Donald Trump’s position in this case. Glad that you find that defending Trump is a noble cause, especially when it involves condemning minorities in the same breath. > [@](#): > > The SDMB is a fine place in many ways. But one downside is that even if you explicitly say one thing there are posters who will pretend that you’ve said something different based on their claim that “it did come across as though you were” saying something else, that they want to attack. So it goes. Is this what you are doing now? You have stated that my posts were silly and ignorant, for only the reason that you disagree with them. You did not ask for clarification, you did not help to dispel any ignorance that you detected. You just ambiguously claimed that my posts were ignorant, making me have to prompt you into explaining why that was. When you finally did, it comes out that you were entirely wrong on my post, and that you only thought “it did come across” as though it was ignorant, when the case was, you were pedantically trying to find the least reasonable way to interpret it. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The reality is that it was always thought to be a gang attack with multiple participants. You’re not going to find DNA from all participants from such an attack, even if you find it from one. But would you expect to find DNA from any of the participants? As not a single one of those accused and convicted had their DNA found at the scene, that’s a bit convenient. You are basically saying that, as it is possible to commit a crime without necessarily leaving evidence, that means you need no evidence to accuse and convict someone. > [@](#): > > In the original confessions, one of the accused claimed the guy who did the actual rape was “a Puerto Rican kid with a hoodie”, a description which fit Matias Reyes. Which was the part that most fit the description, the fact that it was a Puerto Rican, or the fact that he wore a hoodie? Is there only one Puerto Rican in NY that wears a hoodie? > [@](#): > > I agree. I think it’s probable that these kids were involved but that Reyes was the only (or primary) rapist. Inconclusive to be sure, but not scientific evidence of innocence either. I think it is possible that they were involved, just as it was possible that you were involved, and that bozo the clown was involved, as there is exactly as much physical evidence linking them to the crime as there is linking you to the crime. Probable is a bit stronger, but, fortunately, we don’t lock people up on probable, but instead, we only deprive people of their liberty upon a jury finding guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/227 "2017-01-11T20:10:13Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure what point you think you’re making with all this. That logic and the evidence tell us that it is more likely that the 5 were innocent. They may had been involved in the random violence of the day, but not with the rape. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/228 "2017-01-11T20:16:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure what point you think you’re making with all this. You are the one who jumped into the thread to defend trump and attack other posters as being ignorant because they had the audacity to believe that people with no physical evidence against them should not be accused of crimes of which they were exonerated. I suppose your point is that people should be publicly accused of crimes of which they have been exonerated. I see that as a bad idea personally. What point are you trying to make with your defense of Trump’s statements? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/229 "2017-01-11T20:28:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That logic and the evidence tell us that it is more likely that the 5 were innocent. They may had been involved in the random violence of the day, but not with the rape. As above, I personally think it’s more likely than not that they were involved with the rape. But reasonable minds can differ on that. I’m not here to argue against someone saying that it’s more likely they were not involved with the rape. What I am saying is that the assertion that “_The evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time_” is bogus. Make a note of it because I don’t intend to keep repeating it again and again for people who prefer to pretend I’m saying something else. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > If you have no physical evidence that someone committed a crime, as well as evidence that someone else DID commit the crime, I would say that that is pretty good evidence that the first party is innocent. Only if one guy being guilty precludes the other guy from also being involved. If that’s not the case - e.g. here - then it’s not. > [@](#): > > Is this what you are doing now? You have stated that my posts were silly and ignorant, for only the reason that you disagree with them. You did not ask for clarification, you did not help to dispel any ignorance that you detected. You just ambiguously claimed that my posts were ignorant, making me have to prompt you into explaining why that was. You have the sequence wrong here. But regardless, my earlier position stands. Your claim is that a lack of DNA evidence that someone was involved with a crime (now clarified to include evidence that someone else was involved), is strong evidence that the guy was not involved. This claim, which you seem to be doubling down on, is sillier and more ignorant than Donald Trump’s position in this case. > [@](#): > > You are basically saying that, as it is possible to commit a crime without necessarily leaving evidence, that means you need no evidence to accuse and convict someone. You’re confusing “evidence” with “DNA evidence”. You need the former; not necessarily the latter. > [@](#): > > Which was the part that most fit the description, the fact that it was a Puerto Rican, or the fact that he wore a hoodie? > > Is there only one Puerto Rican in NY that wears a hoodie? The PR part. Truth is I have no idea if he was even wearing a hoodie. But the fact that the accused shared that the actual rapist was a PR guy, and this turned out to be true, counts for something. Is it conclusive? Far from it. But it counts for something. > [@](#): > > I think it is possible that they were involved, just as it was possible that you were involved, and that bozo the clown was involved, as there is exactly as much physical evidence linking them to the crime as there is linking you to the crime. See above. Again, not all evidence is “physical evidence”. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > You are the one who jumped into the thread to defend trump and attack other posters as being ignorant because they had the audacity to believe that people with no physical evidence against them should not be accused of crimes of which they were exonerated. I did not argue against anyone making such an assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/230 "2017-01-11T20:35:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You’re confusing “evidence” with “DNA evidence”. You need the former; not necessarily the latter. Your move: 1. Describe the actual evidence that exists to support your position. 2. Admit that you are simply slinging bullshit to obfuscate the issue. 3. (there is no third option) ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/231 "2017-01-11T20:42:03Z")
No. My position is that my posts are clearly correct and speak for themselves. I am well aware that there is a certain type of poster who would forcefully reject that, as you’re doing here. But that’s not the type of poster I’m looking to interact with anyway. So all is good. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/232 "2017-01-11T20:44:40Z")
You’re basically saying that your opinion of the “evidence” is better than a court of laws opinion. Therefore, Trump’s deplorable comments are morally OK. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/233 "2017-01-11T20:53:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As above, I personally think it’s more likely than not that they were involved with the rape. But reasonable minds can differ on that. I’m not here to argue against someone saying that it’s more likely they were not involved with the rape. What I am saying is that the assertion that “_The evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time_” is bogus. Make a note of it because I don’t intend to keep repeating it again and again for people who prefer to pretend I’m saying something else. Well, I am not sure what science has to offer you to refute the DNA evidence, but I am going to stick with empirical evidence, rather than speculation. > [@](#): > > Only if one guy being guilty precludes the other guy from also being involved. If that’s not the case - e.g. here - then it’s not. This is true. But it is also true that it is a pretty sill assertion that since a person could be involved because it is possible that a person is involved, that that person must have been involved. Can you prove that you were not there that night, raping and beating that woman? If not, then you are just as guilty as they are. I assume you can probably prove you were not in NY that night, unless you live there, so I am not necessarily accusing you, but I am, I suppose accusing every single person who was in NY on that night, as they all have pretty much the same evidence against them. > [@](#): > > You have the sequence wrong here. But regardless, my earlier position stands. Your claim is that a lack of DNA evidence that someone was involved with a crime (now clarified to include evidence that someone else was involved), is strong evidence that the guy was not involved. This claim, which you seem to be doubling down on, is sillier and more ignorant than Donald Trump’s position in this case. If believing in innocent until proven guilty is silly and ignorant, then sign me up. You are the one defending trump for his accusations. No matter how many times you insult me, I will continue to believe that it is not the case that one must prove that they did not commit a crime, and instead, there should be evidence that they actually did. > [@](#): > > You’re confusing “evidence” with “DNA evidence”. You need the former; not necessarily the latter. They had no physical evidence, the only evidence they had was the confessions. When they ran with they only piece of actually physical evidence they had, they found that it did not match. So, if I basically kidnap you, lie to you about what your friends are saying about you, lie to you about what kind of evidence we have on you, and you finally sign a confession implicating others more than yourself to avoid life in prison or worse, would you consider that confession to be fair evidence against you? Would you consider that confession to be fair evidence, even when it comes out that your confession contradicts everyone else’s story? Would you still consider it to be fair evidence, even when contradicted by physical evidence? > [@](#): > > The PR part. Truth is I have no idea if he was even wearing a hoodie. But the fact that the accused shared that the actual rapist was a PR guy, and this turned out to be true, counts for something. Is it conclusive? Far from it. But it counts for something. I imagine that people of Puerto Rican descent are pretty common in new york. Does it count for something? Maybe. As one more piece of evidence against someone who already has compelling physical evidence against them, sure. Putting it out there as a condemnation towards those who have no physical evidence linking to the crime, not so much. > [@](#): > > See above. Again, not all evidence is “physical evidence”.I did not argue against anyone making such an assertion. No, not all evidence is physical, but all the physical evidence did not link them to the crime, in fact, it linked a different person to the crime. The only evidence against them is their confessions, which, I have no reason to believe carried any element of truth to them. I have asked you what reason you have to doubt their innocence, and your only reply is that they didn’t prove that they didn’t do it. That the physical evidence doesn’t rule them out. Now, as that pretty much means that no one can be ruled out, I find this assertion to be problematic at best. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/234 "2017-01-11T21:01:50Z")
OK, I think we’re past diminishing returns on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/235 "2017-01-11T21:02:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > So your claim is that the lack of DNA evidence is “_evidence of their innocence [which] is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time_”? So any time someone is accused of assaulting someone, sexually or otherwise, and there’s no DNA evidence, that they need to be found innocent because “_the evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time_”? The DNA evidence that points to another culprit, coupled with the lack of DNA evidence from the folks who were accused, coupled with very little to support their guilt beyond circumstantial evidence and confessions, is indeed the closest science can get us to evidence of their innocence, short of something like the accused having been dead for a few months before the attack. What more do you think forensic science can offer us as evidence of their innocence, in theory? Yes, I know I put the word “forensic” in there, and it wasn’t in the original. I think it was implied, but if your beef is that there are other sciences such as geology or something that could show they were innocent, it’d be interesting to hear your case. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/236 "2017-01-11T21:04:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As above, I personally think it’s more likely than not that they were involved with the rape. But reasonable minds can differ on that. Reasonable minds can conclude that the testimony of the confessed rapist: that matched the scene of the crime and did not implicate the 5, plus the DNA evidence, overrides the contradictory “confessions” of the 5 obtained with no lawyer present. They should be dismissed. As they eventually were. Remember, just about the only thing keeping your train of thought on track was that **one of those now dismissed confessions** talked about a Puerto Rican with a hoodie. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/237 "2017-01-11T21:07:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The DNA evidence that points to another culprit, coupled with the lack of DNA evidence from the folks who were accused, coupled with very little to support their guilt beyond circumstantial evidence and confessions, is indeed the closest science can get us to evidence of their innocence, short of something like the accused having been dead for a few months before the attack. > > What more do you think forensic science can offer us as evidence of their innocence, in theory? There’s no law of nature that science has to be able to provide evidence of anyone’s innocence, so your question is logically flawed. If the absence of DNA evidence is weak evidence of innocence - as it is, in this case - then the fact that “science” can’t do any more to prove their innocence is logically moot. [DNA evidence can be used to prove innocence if there’s strong reason to believe that it should have been present had the accused been guilty, and DNA evidence pointing to someone else can be used to prove innocence if there’s strong reason to believe only one person was involved. But absent that, no.] ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/238 "2017-01-11T21:15:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, I think we’re past diminishing returns on this one. Ehhh, don’t feel too bad, that’s the sort of thing that happens when you defend trump. You find yourself in a corner, trying to defend the indefensible. Once you are against reason, logic, and fact, it is hard to maintain a defense. This has nothing to do with your debating ability, only on your choice of subjects. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There’s no law of nature that science has to be able to provide evidence of anyone’s innocence, so your question is logically flawed. > > If the absence of DNA evidence is weak evidence of innocence - as it is, in this case - then the fact that “science” can’t do any more to prove their innocence is logically moot. > > [DNA evidence can be used to prove innocence if there’s strong reason to believe that it should have been present had the accused been guilty, and DNA evidence pointing to someone else can be used to prove innocence if there’s strong reason to believe only one person was involved. But absent that, no.] DNA gets sloughed off all the time. If there was no evidence of their DNA anywhere on her or at the scene, then they must have been ridiculously careful while they held her and beat her and everything else. Not a single bit of hair, skin, blood, saliva or semen was transferred from their bodies’ to hers during this struggle. The fact that not a single one of them’s DNA showed up in any part of the investigation leads you (ETA:not necessarily you, but a reasonable, rational person) to wonder if they were ever there at all. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/239 "2017-01-11T21:27:07Z")
[The CSI Effect …](https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-csi-effect-juries-demand-more-evidence) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/240 "2017-01-11T21:31:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [The CSI Effect …](https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-csi-effect-juries-demand-more-evidence) Think you missed, cafe society is over that way. (Or is this another one of your “my posts are clearly correct and speak for themselves” posts) Or are you accusing me of something there? With what little is in that post and the convoluted way you are attempting to twist logic in order to defend trump’s statements, I could convict a whole city. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/241 "2017-01-11T21:32:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No. So, you’re on record at taking Door Number Two, then. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/242 "2017-01-11T21:33:14Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > (Or is this another one of your “my posts are clearly correct and speak for themselves” posts) > > Or are you accusing me of something there? Can I select both options here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307.md?page=13)