Does anyone find it strange how all the liberals support Trayvon/ conservatives

1. 71

   BigJulesMagsposted 10 years ago

   Does anyone find it strange how all the liberals support Trayvon/ conservatives for Zimmerman?
   
   I see both sides claiming bias in the media on the other side, or some kind of systematic, race based flaw.  However, how come we're split along political lines?  Doesn't this show that America as a whole has made up their minds, and are altering the facts to prove their point?  What happened to critical thinking on a case by case basis?  Is this evidence for dichotomous, two party groupthink?

   replyreport
2. 60

   dianetrotterposted 10 years ago

   BigJ, I think the racist conservatives are doing all they can to make it look like they speak for all conservatives.  I have wavered between conservative and moderate myself. 
   Today I received a mailing from American Center for Law and Justice asking for a donation and talking about the IRS.  It gave me great pleasure to tear up all of the material.  I wrote a letter to Jay Sekulow telling him that they remained silent on the Zimmerman case.  I will also write an article about the growing "minority" and their impact on future elections and politics.
   
   Conservatives that don't want to be associated with racists need to make themselves known.  Conservative websites should not allow racists comments.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Abby Campbellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Amen, Diane. Very well said! :-)

      replyreport
3. 93

   peeplesposted 10 years ago

   I'm mostly liberal and support Zimmerman. Actually I work with several African American liberals who like me, hate that someone died, but feel that while Zimmerman shouldn't have pursued, he had no option but to shoot when Martin was on top of him beating him.  A large amount of the issue is racism from the media, blacks, and whites. The liberals I hear crying out for Justice for Trayvon are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that dozens of people have been beaten and/or killed by blacks trying to get that "Justice". Blatantly ignoring the facts of the entire case in order to gain something racially motivated is in my opinion racist!
   Also even if people don't like to admit it, the majority of blacks are Dems, and for some reason anytime a black person is killed and it makes national media, all evidence goes down the toilet. The large majority just see an injustice to their race instead of what it was. It's quite sad there is so much racism from both sides.
   However if anyone spent five full minutes looking at the evidence they would know this case had nothing to do with race. It had to do with a hot head who disobeyed the police and ended up being attacked by a know it all trouble maker kid. Sadly the result was death. Both parties were at fault for the situation in at least some extent and there NEVER WAS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST RACE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! I wish people could get that part through their heads.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CalebSparksposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Right, peeples. Those who are willing to examine the FACTS of the case and keep their emotions from controlling them must see that this was a case of self-defense. No need to drag race into this.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      dianetrotterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Why did Trayvon look like he as up to no good?

      replyreport
   3. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe because he was cutting through people's yards. It was stated in the original call that he was cutting between two houses (in a neighborhood that had multiple break ins) I would always assume "no good" when in someone else yard.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      dianetrotterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Zimmerman saw him at the mailboxes.  That supports the diagrams that were introduced in court.  At point did the diagram show him looking into homes.  People want to believe Zimmerman's lies - he told many . If they didn't they'd have to see the trut

      replyreport
   5. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And you want to assume he's lying.  You are being a hypocrite. You have no idea and really none of us do except those who found him not guilty. All we can go off of is what both people had a history of. A hot head and a trouble maker.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      dianetrotterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If I have no idea and you have no idea, why am I a hypocrite.  I really would like to know why I am a hypocrite.

      replyreport
   7. 72

      Abby Campbellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      During the trial, it was stated that Trayvon had been peeping into neighborhood windows. Maybe that was evidence that was in favor of Zimmerman?

      replyreport
   8. 60

      dianetrotterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Abby I watched the trial from 6 am (PSDT) until close daily.  Which person said he was peeping in windows.  No one testified about seeing him until the confrontation with Zimmerman.  I'm open.  Who said that?

      replyreport
   9. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Diane Zimmerman could say the sky was blue at this point and I believe you would think it was a lie. Why are you so adamantly sure Martin wasn't at any fault given the past he had?

      replyreport
   10. 72

       Abby Campbellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Diane, I don't know who said it. I just heard it on the trial channel when I was watching it. I'm not into the case so much, and I certainly don't have the patience to sit all day everyday as you had. But, curiosity drew me to it once in a while.

       replyreport
   11. 67

       Lady Guinevereposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The Judge at the end of the trial said that many things were not in the trial bcuz they were not pertaining to the case of 2nd degree murder.  Lots were hidden Diane.  Most of what was said in the beg was stricken from the trial.

       replyreport
   12. 71

       BigJulesMagsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I wrote about this in depth on my personal blog, which you can get to from my home page.  I do not believe the trial was a sham at all, nor the verdict.  Not enough space here to explain why.  I just really see celebrities, etc. framing this wrong.

       replyreport
   13. 60

       dianetrotterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       BigJ did you hear a witness say that Trayvon was peeping through windows?

       replyreport
   14. 71

       BigJulesMagsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I found no evidence of peeping.  This article says he wasn't reported as doing that: http://gazette.com/regardless-of-the-tr … le/1503174  .  I could see suspicion.  But you don't chase him down.

       replyreport
   15. 60

       dianetrotterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you BigJ - no peeping.  Also thank you for allowing me to comment.  Our comments are not a reflection of others but of ourselves.  Dodging questions w/ deflection is one thing.  Personal attacks are tacky.  Unfollowing.

       replyreport
   16. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       What personal attack was anywhere here diane?  There's plenty of disagreeing in the thread of comments but no one attacked you. You are welcome to your own opinion, but you can't expect everyone to agree. BTW theres never enough room in these comment

       replyreport
4. 72

   Abby Campbellposted 10 years ago

   I don't really see bias amongst those I socialize with. I have liberal friends who sided with Zimmerman, and even one of my conservative daughters sided with Trayvon. When it comes to media, whether leaning towards the left or right, there will be some altering of facts. After all, it's the media! It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Though most journalists just report facts, there are many "shows" on news channels that are not really journalists. They are just hosts with their own opinions. They are the ones that form the opinion of viewers on whether that channel is liberal or conservation, and unfortunately, many see these hosts as journalists.
   
   With that being said, I do believe that each political line agrees on many issues because of their beliefs. But, I don't think that was the case with the Trayvon/Zimmerman case.

   replyreport
   1. 40

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It is extremely rare to find honest, unbiased reporting in the US on TV the internet or newspapers. This is true tenfold with things like the Zimmerman trial where they can insert racism into the mix, whether it played any part or not.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Cassie Smithposted 10 years ago

   The Martin/Zimmerman case had nothing to do with critical thinking because if it did, the whole thing wouldn't have resulted in a trial.  Anyone who watched the trial unfold knew that by the conclusion that the prosecutors had no evidence against Zimmerman.  Even several of their own witnesses showed that Zimmerman was telling the truth and couldn't prove the prosecution's case.  The trial was a sham and it was purely political and because it was political no one should be surprised that the reaction to the verdict ran along political lines.

   replyreport
   1. 40

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Most of the prosecutor's witnesses sounded more like defense witnesses.
      The whole trial was politically motivated the local PD looked at the evidence and didn't press charges because there were none to press.

      replyreport
6. 71

   BigJulesMagsposted 10 years ago

   I'm not convinced the motive was race.  I think this has more to do with Zimmerman's ideas of wanting to be Johnny Law than anything.  Gun advocates will argue that Zimmerman is allowed to carry.  As a gun advocate, I acknowledge this.  However, carrying a gun for self defense and using one for patrol when you are not an officer of the law are two very different things.  I am convinced that Zimmerman did not commit murder.  I am not convinced that this wasn't manslaughter.  However, in light of the law as written, there is not a charge you could convict Zimmerman of beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.  One of the things Zimmerman's attorney went hard on was the fact there was no hard evidence or eyewitness account of who approached who. 
   
   That is correct.  That evidence never unfolded. 
   
   I do, however, believe that people such as amateur security guards and neighborhood watch personnel should be required to undergo police training if they will be using a firearm to patrol.  A real cop never would have been in such a situation.  He at least would have had a partner.
   
   What is frustrating to me is the identity games the media is playing with this trial.  When you have CNN going so hard for Trayvon and Fox backing Zimmerman, it really seems like capitalism off of division.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Abby Campbellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well said, BigJulesMags. :-)

      replyreport
7. 72

   lone77starposted 10 years ago

   The Corporate Party media has become a propaganda machine used to divide and conquer. Living 6 years out of the States has let me see the patterns of evil. Yep, evil. I couldn't see them while living there. They've become entirely divisive. Like calling 9/11 facts -- "conspiracy theory," simply because they disprove the official conspiracy theory.
   
   And there are so many crimes of the American government that most Americans don't even know about. Independent investigative journalists make those crimes painfully obvious and it's getting worse.
   
   As for the Martin-Zimmerman case, from evidence I've seen recently, it appears that Obama and the Corporate Party press have made a demon (Trayvon) seem like a saint, and Zimmerman seem like a devil. News reporters interviewing former jurors, asking loaded questions like, "Did Zimmerman get away with murder?"
   
   This video raises some important questions about the biased motives of the press:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls
   
   I don't think the press is biased for or against Zimmerman. I think they're biased against America -- dividing us -- pitting one group against another. After all, the owners of the Corporate Party media also own the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned us about.
   
   I have to laugh when someone uses the term: "conspiracy theory." It's almost as if they are deluded enough to think that there has never been a conspiracy in the history of humanity.
   
   80 years ago, Normalcy Bias kept millions of Germans from understanding what Hitler was doing. Dividing Aryans against Jews. Gun control followed by forced disarmament. Reichstag fire as False Flag op to foster fear in order to push their agenda, as we've done with 9/11. And attacking countries that did nothing to us -- Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (the last, without Congressional declaration, breaking the law).
   
   Obama has committed treason so many times, I've lost count. His "kill list" with Americans on it is one. Not restoring habeas corpus, as he promised to do, is another. Signing NDAA with its indefinite detention clauses for American citizens is another. Even fighting a federal judge on NDAA, while pretending to be pro-liberty, is not only two-faced, but it's treason. Obama gave an oath to protect the Constitution, but has repeatedly shredded it, bit-by-bit.
   
   What does this have to do with your question? Everything. These are all symptoms of creeping tyranny, far sexier and more sophisticated than anything Hitler ever did

   replyreport
8. 78

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   For any complex set of facts there are always going to be multiple interpretations. That's the reality of life. Some people downplay Zimmerman following Martin and conclude that once in a 'fight for his life' Zimmerman had no choice. Others don't think Zimmerman had any business following Martin in the first place and so he is entirely responsible for anything that happened after that (and there are certainly other interpretations). That doesn't mean one or the other side is ignorant of the facts. They just weigh things differently.
   
   Personally, I think the liberal/conservative divide comes down to public good vs. individualism. Conservatives tend to be strongly individualistic (especially these days). They are more likely to see in black and white, to see the world as good people vs. bad people and that good people must do their part in the battle against them. And so, Zimmerman is a hero, bravely going into the trenches to defend his neighborhood and ultimately exit a victorious slayer.
   
   Liberals, however, put greater concern towards the overall public good. Zimmerman should have let the police (public safety) do their job. Individuals running around with guns blasting people simply helps to perpetuate a world of violence and conflict.
   
   There is also of course a racial component. If Martin had been an Abercrombie model, Zimmerman would have paid him no heed. Those concerned about racial issues think this is worth talking about. Those on the other side spend an enormous amount of effort downplaying race and/or pretending to themselves be the victims of reverse racism.
   
   So no, I don't find it strange at all. It is exactly what I would expect. Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a clean dichotomy. There is an awful lot of flavor betwixt the two polar ends.

   replyreport
   1. 40

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I completely agree with your insights here - very well stated.

      replyreport
9. 68

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   Being liberal or conservative should have had nothing to do with it.  A Conservative is someone who embraces a more classical view of liberalism.  They advocate for individual liberty above all else.  Contrary to junkseller's statement below, Conservatives routinely concern themselves with the public good.  They just reject the notion that the public good is better served more often than not through the govt's collective bureaucracy, because there is no evidence that this is the case.  Whereas liberal's tend to place a much greater degree of confidence in the collective ability of the gov't to solve societies problems for them.  The notion that Conservatives are not as interested in the public good is preposterous, as they also live within society.  This was thoroughly disproven by the work done by economist and social scientists Arthur Brooks in his book 'Who Really Cares"  which is an excellent read. 
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares- … 0465008216
   
   As an example, religious conservatives more than any other group, give more of their time and money...both in terms of the aggregate dollars and percentage of income to charitable causes than any other demographic in the country.  The second most generous demographic was actually religious liberals.   In fact secular liberals where the least likely to be charitable.  Perhaps that is a result of their lack of faith in anything other than gov't.  Who knows why.  But a demographic that is more charitable than any other demographic is hard to characterize as less concerned with the public good, and is a total mischaracterization of the conservative ideals.  Both liberals and conservatives (citizens...not politicians) are concerned with the public good.  They just have very different views on how this is best accomplished.
   
   In terms of the Zimmerman/Martin case...this had nothing to do with politics.  For example, Zimmerman as it turns out was a minority himself and a registered Democrat.  Yet the media was able to characterize him as a "self identified Hispanic"  (meaning white) and pit him against the black community.  He followed this young man because he was walking close to the homes after dark in a neighborhood that had recent break in's, and he the fit demographic of recent perpetrators.  That was plenty of reason to be suspicious for a person who is on neighborhood watch.  The media is the only one with the agenda, and they did a great job of fanning the flames.

   replyreport
10. 84

    krillcoposted 10 years ago

    I do not support the young black man because I'm liberal, I support him because the other guy started following him, was told by an authority not to get out of his car, but he did, approached the young man, and now the young man is dead of a gunshot from the gun that he did not have in his possession. I don;t care what politic you are, anyone with a thinking brain will tell you that the shooter is wrong, and should be jailed for at least manslaughter.

    replyreport
    1. 71

       BigJulesMagsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You have a point.  Statutorily, though, I believe the verdict was right.  Ethically?  Zimmerman had no business following.  There weren't eyewitnesses of a pursuit.  That's a big thing that contributed to the reasonable doubt interpretation.

       replyreport
    2. 40

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I'm guessing that you didn't watch the trial because your facts are wrong. What you are saying doesn't match the evidence given in the testimony or match the physical evidence presented.

       replyreport
11. 74

    ParadigmEnactedposted 10 years ago

    This is why America desperately needs three or more political parties and viable candidates. Ideologically, I'm very liberal, but I resent how they want to get everybody to sit down, shut up, and conform and their agenda is to totally deplete everybody's critically thinking ability so that everything has to be about race.
    
    The facts are that race is hardly a major factor in most transactions that take place in the modern day. Liberals have turned equal rights into an advantage for minority groups by deliberately skewering facts in matters like this to fit their agenda or some unfounded guilt complex absorbed into the human psyche even though it is entirely antiquated. Now that everybody is on equal footing and there are less overt threats to a person's existence than ever, people can't live without the drama and the polarizations. It's a shame on enlightened beings in the modern day to allow themselves to be drawn into opposing camps.
    
    It actually takes away from situations like Rodney King which was a true wrong doing and where dissent was directing at law enforcement and the court system. What happens now is a deliberate attack on people's minds and where one group of people clearly has their sights set on pushing the self-destruct button over race relation issues that they haven't experienced first hand and only know about from text books.

    replyreport
    1. 40

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Rodney King was stopped at the end of a chase from the scene of a robbery where King beat and robbed a store owner. He beat him badly enough to cripple him for life. I wish people would stop trying to paint him as an innocent poor black man.

       replyreport
    2. 74

       ParadigmEnactedposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The amount of force used by the police was nonetheless excessive and unnecessary. The incident also illuminated ongoing issues between the LAPD and local residents.

       replyreport
12. 40

    Borsiaposted 10 years ago

    The Zimmerman case really had nothing to do with race or gun laws. That is all media hype grabbed up to get ratings and the Obama administration trying to defocus Americans from what they are doing.
    If anyone actually watched the trial when asked to describe the suspicious stranger Zimmerman gave a basic description which included the comment that he thought he might be black. There was no malice in his voice, he didn't use any kind of racial slur. His comment about how "These A$$holes always get away" was about whoever had been victimizing the neighborhood.
    He was already out of his car when he made the 911 call. In fact the dispatcher asked him if he was walking or running because of noises in the background. He then asked Z if he was following and said "we don't need you to do that." at which point Z stopped. Minutes later the dispatcher asked if  Z could still see M and asked which way he went. Z said that he could no longer see Martin and took the question to mean that he should go look to determine what direction martin had gone. He (Z) then started walking in the direction Martin had gone. At some point as he walked he was confronted and attacked by Martin. Since his keys and flashlight were 20-30' from the final fight scene we can assume that that is where the attack occurred.
    Z didn't have his gun in his hand and didn't get it out until he was under Martin being head slammed against the concrete. It was then that he managed to get the gun out and fired 1 shot.
    I have been trained in combat shooting, by the same trainer who works with the police, and you never fire 1 shot. You are taught to fire in bursts of 2-3 rapid shots.
    It is the media who made this about race and about liberal vs conservative by picking and choosing what they showed, like a photo of Martin that was several years out of date, and who they quoted, choosing only the most damaging.
    Notice that the media never questioned why Martin didn't just keep going home, he had plenty of time to exit the complex. But he either hid in the dark waiting for Z or doubled back to attack Z.
    Little mention was made about the fact that there had been numerous thefts in recent weeks and that Z had every reason and right to watch strangers. That he should lock himself in his car is ludicrous he was in his own neighborhood.
    It is sad that things went down as they did but Martin's death was mostly a result of his own actions.
    But the media / political circus goes on and they are still sucking every but they can out of the incident,,, shameful.

    replyreport
13. 0

    christiananrkistposted 10 years ago

    Good question. Politics is usually completely biased. Trying to find even one person on either side who isn't is near impossible. I tend to find more intellectually honest people in religious discussions than political. The trayvon/zimmerman case is unfortunate because we really only have one side of the story.

    replyreport