# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/303 "2017-01-13T09:27:55Z")
Oh, and speaking of problems with our modern criminal justice system: how easy it is to get away with rape or sexual assault, and how hard it is to convict rapists. I’m sure this is something the Trump administration is going crack down on real hard, right? > [@Trump's Cabinet of Curiosities](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/853): > > Well, now we know that according to the soon to be top law enforcement officer in the country, Attorney General Jeff Sessions on grabbing a woman by the pussy: > > [http://www.weeklystandard.com/jeff-sessions-behavior-described-by-trump-in-grab-them-by-the-p-y-tape-isnt-sexual-assault/article/2004799](http://www.weeklystandard.com/jeff-sessions-behavior-described-by-trump-in-grab-them-by-the-p-y-tape-isnt-sexual-assault/article/2004799) Oh. Never mind then. ---
**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 13, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/304 "2017-01-13T14:31:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > **k9bfriender** , > > Unfortunately there seems to be no limit to the amount of BS you can attribute to me and insert into my words, and frankly it gets tedious. I am going to address your distortions for the last time Yes, yes it is. Maybe next time you think before jumping in and accusing others of being ignorant. > [@](#): > > Again. > > I never claimed there was new evidence. I did not introduce the Armstrong report under the guise of it’s being new evidence. I did not “finally admit” that there was no new evidence because that has never been my claim. I asked for any evidence that would reaffirm their conviction, you “introduced” the armstrong with no explanation, as if it answered the question, so it would only make sense that it was your claim that it did in fact address the question. It is not my fault that you did not bother to address the question. > [@](#): > > I disputed the need for “new” evidence, because the “old” evidence has not been completely refuted, and still suffices to cast considerable doubt on claims that these defendants were innocent. This is shown in the Armstrong report. > > Not only did I not claim that there were witnesses who identified them as the rapists but I explicitly said that there were not witnesses who identified them as the rapists. It’s hard to imagine how you could have missed it (in the unlikely event that you really did). > > What I said was that there were witnesses who identified them attacking other people in the same general area on that same day. The notion that people who were engaged in gang attacks on people in the same park on that same evening might also be guilty of this particular attack is considerably more than being “near enough to the crime”. Which is why I said you “exaggerated” when you depicted it that way. That’s what is called circumstantial evidence. Which is what I said was the limit of what they had. You claimed they had witnesses. That’s a different claim, one of which you were unable to back up. > [@](#): > > Your attempt to pretend that I claimed or implied that there were other witnesses to them raping this woman is on par with your approach in this thread. No, I did not actually pretend that claim, that was sarcasm. You were though implying that there is more than circumstantial evidence, for which you are incorrect. > [@](#): > > No doubt you will bounce back with more jive. But I don’t have all day for this, so I think I’m done with you.You are confused. > > There is no doubt that Reyes was guilty of the crime to which he confessed. That’s not in question. The question is about his absolving of the others, about which there is much more doubt. I’m done with your hijack, anyway. Actually, almost all I knew about the case coming into this thread was from a college English paper I proofread for a friend a few years back. I did actually learn a few things from about the whole situation from participating in the thread, but not a single thing from you. Did you learn anything? If not, was it actually because no new information was presented to you? I was mostly just annoyed at your coming into the thread accusing others of ignorance, when it seemed to me (and still seems), as though you are not well versed on this matter. You have only circumstantial evidence at best. As the “confessions” were inconsistent with each other, and not a one of them “confessed” to the actual rape, there is more than reasonable doubt that those confessions were given under duress. If you throw out the confessions, what do you have? So, yeah, I guess it all comes down to whether you believe that the confessions were given under duress or if they made of their own free will. If you are the sort of person who believes that the police never do any wrong and always get the right guy, then I can see why you would have problems accepting that the confessions were forced and false. If you assume that cops are human, make mistakes, and also sometimes go with what is easiest, rather than what is best, then you could see how the police more or less manufactured the case against them and forced the confessions under duress. Basically, it does come down to how much you unquestioningly trust authority figures. I take it that you put much more trust in them than I. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s your prerogative, of course. But meanwhile, I stand by my interpretation of your remarks and don’t see a possible alternative. If you are going to take this sort of stance, then you cannot get upset when others interpret your remarks in the only possible way. ---
**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 13, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/305 "2017-01-13T14:38:25Z")
As predicted … ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2017, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/306 "2017-01-13T16:46:53Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The state where crime is down substantially across the board… > > What a bizarre post. I could not point to any particular part of it that actually comports to reality. In reality, under president Obama, crime is down. _Substantially_. Crime skyrocketed in wake of the counterculture revolution of the late sixties. Violent crime in particular stayed at a much higher level for decades, and now, even after a decade or more in which it’s gone down it’s still higher than it was before. [Cite](http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Violent-Crime-Rate-Chart1.png). Murder rates, while also skyrocketing in the aftermath of the sixties, has indeed finally dropped to the levels of fifty years ago ([cite](http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Murder-Rate-Chart.png)), but I’m sure that’s scant consolation to the families and loved ones of all those murdered in the decades since. But apart from that, who can say why crime levels have been going down? It certainly hasn’t been because of anything Obama’s done. It had been going down prior to his election and I doubt you can point to anything Obama’s done that has reduced crime in the slightest. My guess is that it’s gone down because a significant percentage of people from high crime areas have moved to other areas where the opportunity for and acceptance of crime and criminal activity isn’t nearly as prevalent. And then there are 3-strikes laws (which came about in the first place as a reaction to decades-loag liberal successes in getting criminals freed from jail over and over and over again) which have both a deterrent effect and serve to insure at least a certain number of these douchebags stay in the clink where they belong. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I couldn’t tell you who all these “violent and hardened criminals” are. I can tell you how to find them. Next time someone gets arrested for assault or rape or robbery or murder, take a look at their rap sheet. Do this every time such an arrest is reported. You’ll find the vast majority of time these crimes are committed by people with multiple arrests (and often, multiple incarcerations) in their background. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Really, the key part here is this: “There’s a widespread feeling that liberalism is soft on crime.” Feeling. As in, not necessarily anything in reality based on it, just a _feeling_ one has that America has gotten more dangerous. It hasn’t. Crime is _still_ down. It’s at a low we haven’t seen in a long time. This is just an absurd strawman based on a downright Trumpian\* view of reality. Love the way you guys cause crime to skyrocket, and then when it finally starts to come down decades later but is still higher than it was before, you handwave away the decades-long damage you’ve created and then behave as though the fact crime hasn’t been quite as bad recently as it was at its peak is sufficient to rebut claims that crime is a problem. But to get back to your point that people only ‘feel’ there’s a problem with crime and how criminals get released over and over and over again to prey on the public, perhaps I was in error there. I should have said they ‘recognize’ there’s a problem instead. And it’s a problem that’s been around and that they’ve resented going on 50 years now. There’s also the [del]feeling[/del] cognizance that people in general behave more lawlessly now than they did before. Road rage, fights on airplanes, gangs of kids storming shopping malls and other businesses, so-called ‘knockout games’, Black Friday brawls, etc., etc., are but a few examples. And Trump voters like those in **GIGO’s** link are hoping that with Trump in office something will finally be done about it. Can’t blame 'em for that IMO. ---
**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 13, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/307 "2017-01-13T17:07:16Z")
Well, as \*\*Starving Artist \*\*was shown to be wrong many, many times before about the counterculture one can ignore his last post as usual. ---
**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 13, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/308 "2017-01-13T17:11:26Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > But apart from that, _who can say why_ crime levels have been going down? _It certainly hasn’t been because of_ anything Obama’s done. (emphasis added) **Starving** , **Starving** , **Starving** … you were supposed to put [the United Way update](http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-10-02) between those statements… ---
**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 13, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/309 "2017-01-13T17:17:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, as \*\*Starving Artist \*\*was shown to be wrong many, many times before about the counterculture one can ignore his last post as usual. However, somebody ping me when he gives us his explanation for how not wearing hats caused crime to rise. ---
**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 13, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/310 "2017-01-13T17:32:14Z")
Close to reality, a good reason for the violence and crime one sees nowadays is due to the stupid war against drugs. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/wJUXLqNHCaI/maxresdefault.jpg "Why The War on Drugs Is a Huge Failure") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI) > **[Economist Links 'War on Drugs' to Increased Homicide Rate](https://www.independent.org/news/news_detail.asp?newsid=35)** > > Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition > [@](#): > > Drug prohibition in the U.S. is now almost eighty years old. In recent years, government expenditure for prohibition enforcement has exceeded $33 billion annually, with law enforcement authorities making more than 1.5 million arrests per year on drug-related charges. Jeffrey Miron, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, offers an insightful look at the costs, benefits, and consequences of drug prohibition and offers some new and disturbing findings, including: > > ``` > The link between the homicide rate and the amount of resources given to drug prohibition. A study of sample precincts in New York City, for example, found that three-quarters of drug-related homicides resulted from drug-trade disputes. Eliminating drug prohibition would probably reduce homicide in the United States by 25 to 75 percent. > > ``` So, yet another thing we can condemn Nixon for. Unfortunately the Trump choice of Sessions tell us that the efforts of many states to decriminalize drugs is likely to be turned back. ---
**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 13, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/311 "2017-01-13T17:43:46Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > However, somebody ping me when he gives us his explanation for how not wearing hats caused crime to rise. It’s the new science. We can now also explain how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/312 "2017-01-14T01:41:35Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Crime skyrocketed in wake of the counterculture revolution of the late sixties. Violent crime in particular stayed at a much higher level for decades, and now, even after a decade or more in which it’s gone down it’s still higher than it was before. [Cite](http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Violent-Crime-Rate-Chart1.png). Murder rates, while also skyrocketing in the aftermath of the sixties, has indeed finally dropped to the levels of fifty years ago ([cite](http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Murder-Rate-Chart.png)), but I’m sure that’s scant consolation to the families and loved ones of all those murdered in the decades since. > > But apart from that, who can say why crime levels have been going down? It certainly hasn’t been because of anything Obama’s done. It had been going down prior to his election and I doubt you can point to anything Obama’s done that has reduced crime in the slightest. My guess is that it’s gone down because a significant percentage of people from high crime areas have moved to other areas where the opportunity for and acceptance of crime and criminal activity isn’t nearly as prevalent. And then there are 3-strikes laws (which came about in the first place as a reaction to decades-loag liberal successes in getting criminals freed from jail over and over and over again) which have both a deterrent effect and serve to insure at least a certain number of these douchebags stay in the clink where they belong. > > I can tell you how to find them. Next time someone gets arrested for assault or rape or robbery or murder, take a look at their rap sheet. Do this every time such an arrest is reported. You’ll find the vast majority of time these crimes are committed by people with multiple arrests (and often, multiple incarcerations) in their background. > > Love the way you guys cause crime to skyrocket, and then when it finally starts to come down decades later but is still higher than it was before, you handwave away the decades-long damage you’ve created and then behave as though the fact crime hasn’t been quite as bad recently as it was at its peak is sufficient to rebut claims that crime is a problem. > > But to get back to your point that people only ‘feel’ there’s a problem with crime and how criminals get released over and over and over again to prey on the public, perhaps I was in error there. I should have said they ‘recognize’ there’s a problem instead. And it’s a problem that’s been around and that they’ve resented going on 50 years now. > > There’s also the [del]feeling[/del] cognizance that people in general behave more lawlessly now than they did before. Road rage, fights on airplanes, gangs of kids storming shopping malls and other businesses, so-called ‘knockout games’, Black Friday brawls, etc., etc., are but a few examples. > > And Trump voters like those in **GIGO’s** link are hoping that with Trump in office something will finally be done about it. Can’t blame 'em for that IMO. It’s an opinion, not anything close to fact, that liberal policies were responsible for increased crime rates. It’s an incredibly complicated topic – crime rates went up all over the world, and then started to settle back down all over the world in the last 20 years or so. There’s data that suggests that [fumes from leaded gasoline](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health) might be involved… if this is true, then it was _government policy_ that was responsible for reducing the crime rate, since government policy outlawed leaded gasoline. I don’t think we can conclude with certainty that this is the explanation, but it’s plausible, and just as reasonable (or more so, IMO) than your explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/313 "2017-01-14T03:32:15Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Crime skyrocketed in wake of the counterculture revolution of the late sixties. This is true, but what you forgot to mention is that it was the counterculture revolution of the [1760’s](https://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/violence-stylized2.png?w=430&h=295)! Buncha dirty non-hat-wearing anti-monarchists ruining our civilization. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/314 "2017-01-14T03:57:26Z")
Paine was the Rolling Stones, Hamilton was the Beach Boys. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307.md?page=15)