How's That Working For Ya Venezuelans?

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2017, 08:10 PM)Dill Wrote: PESD afflicts virtually everyone looking for consistent domestic and foreign policy respecting data and evidence.

It cannot affect anyone who thinks alternative facts are as good as the real thing.  


 

That's it; you must be strong. Recognizing you have the disorder is the first step. Hopefully in time, you'll learn to face reality instead of cocooning yourself in this world of illusion.   

We tried to get out in front of it when we established support spaces throughout the Nation immediately after the results. Unfortunately the trauma was too much for many to cope and they have just fabricated this alternate reality where everything is Trump's fault. For example I was recently reading a thread about the effect of gun control laws in Venezuela and you'll never guess what happened..... 

[Dill]

(04-22-2017, 06:15 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I'd do the following:

2. I'd do everything I possibly could to prevent my country's economy from depending solely on the price of one export (oil) to be successful.

The centrality of oil to the economy certainly has made it subject to fluctuations in oil prices.

I wonder if the Venezuelans have been trying to do something about that.

[Dill]

(04-22-2017, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's it; you must be strong. Recognizing you have the disorder is the first step. Hopefully in time, you'll learn to face reality instead of cocooning yourself in this world of illusion.   

We tried to get out in front of it when we established support spaces throughout the Nation immediately after the results. Unfortunately the trauma was too much for many to cope and they have just fabricated this alternate reality where everything is Trump's fault. For example I was recently reading a thread about the effect of gun control laws in Venezuela and you'll never guess what happened..... 

Here is your chance to slap me right out of that world of illusion.

Trump says that 3-5 million people voted illegally in the last election: he also says that Obama wiretapped Trump towers, that Russian interference in our election is fake news,  and that the murder rate is the highest it's been in 47 years.  He also seems to think that Kim Jong-un has been the leader of Korea since the 1990s. And he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11.

Can you help me understand why the FBI/CIA and our state and federal records do not support these claims? Or perhaps they DO support Trump's claims but the MSM is lying about it? What are the alternative facts?

I notice you don't waste much time acknowledging Factual discrepancies between what is and what Trump says, but when others do, you are quick to question their perception, not Trump's. Is that the secret?

You say there are support spaces somewhere.  Were I to find my way into one, would I be told that all this dissonance between Trump's statements and reality would disappear if I just trusted the leader day to day, and leave all the questions and problems up to his hand-picked White House staff?  Have you been doing it that way? 

Perhaps I could find more trustworthy news sources. Would you recommend Fox? They would have a television in those support spaces, right?

There may be a more intractable problem though. I read a lot of books and traveled a lot places BEFORE Trump was elected. Hard to erase that stuff now--very hard when a US "armada" is steaming towards Korea and we hear that the Iran Nuke deal may be "reviewed" soon.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2017, 09:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is your chance to slap me right out of that world of illusion.

Trump says that 3-5 million people voted illegally in the last election: he also says that Obama wiretapped Trump towers, that Russian interference in our election is fake news,  and that the murder rate is the highest it's been in 47 years.  He also seems to think that Kim Jong-un has been the leader of Korea since the 1990s.

Can you help me understand why the FBI/CIA and our state and federal records do not support these claims? Or perhaps they DO support Trump's claims but the MSM is lying about it?

I notice you don't waste much time acknowledging Factual discrepancies between what is and what Trump says, but when others do, you are quick to question their perception, not Trump's. Is that the secret?

You say there are support spaces somewhere.  Were I to find my way into one, would I be told that all this dissonance between Trump's statements and reality would disappear if I just trusted the leader day to day, and leave all the questions and problems up to his hand-picked White House staff?  Have you been doing it that way? 

Perhaps I could find more trustworthy news sources. Would you recommend Fox? They would have a television in those support spaces, right?

There may be a more intractable problem though. I read a lot of books and traveled a lot places BEFORE Trump was elected. Hard to erase that stuff now--very hard when a US "armada" is steaming towards Korea and we hear that the Iran Nuke deal may be "reviewed" soon.

Oh, it's worse than I thought.

[Dill]

(04-22-2017, 09:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, it's worse than I thought.

Very hard to define others' appeal to the record as "illusion" while avoiding any fact-based discussion yourself.

You pretty much have to keep ACTING like the other guy is wrong and hope he'll start to doubt himself.
That works in cults, I hear.

[*bfine32*]

(04-22-2017, 09:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Very hard to define others' appeal to the record as "illusion" while avoiding any fact-based discussion yourself.

You pretty much have to keep ACTING like the other guy is wrong and hope he'll start to doubt himself.
That works in cults, I hear.

Dude you are in a thread about Gun Laws in Venezuela bringing up and obsessing about Trump.

I would never say you're wrong; that's a trigger word. I fear I have agitated you instead of helping you seek awareness. I'm out.   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-22-2017, 01:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thinlk you guys are missing the point of the OP.

GUN LAWS are what have cause all the violence in Vebezuela.

If the government had not taken away all fo the guns there would be no violence or civil uinrest of any type in that country.

Damn GUN LAWS!!!!!!

I think the actual point is that gun laws did nothing  to prevent gun violence.  I think the other point would be that the government first took away private gun ownership and then expanded dictatorial powers.  Additionally, the government has now started handing out guns to citizens who are government loyalists.

Please return to your hyperbolic rant now.

[CKwi88]

The problems in Venezuela, hell, South America in general, go much further than public arms ownership.

But that won't stop some from trying to make a connection.

[GMDino]

(04-22-2017, 11:15 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The problems in Venezuela, hell, South America in general, go much further than public arms ownership.

But that won't stop some from trying to make a connection.

To be fair they have to make that argument so they can pretend it's happening here...or will...or might...or.....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-22-2017, 11:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: To be fair they have to make that argument so they can pretend it's happening here...or will...or might...or.....

"They" lol.  Simple math does all the proving that a rational person would need.  In the past twenty years the number of guns owned by citizens has soared while the violent crime rate continued to drop.  It's not that complicated.

It is also simple fact that dictatorial governments always seek to ban private firearms ownership.  It is also simple fact that high profile left leaning politicians have floated the idea of confiscation, one need look no further than Hillary saying the Australian solution to gun ownership was something worth looking at.

[xxlt]

(04-22-2017, 03:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Actually never said that, but thanks for putting that good 'ol Fred BS spin on it.

What I was saying was it probably sure would be nice to still own your gun while the President is trying to steal all power in the government, there are roving bands of criminals (who still have guns) stealing food that other people can't afford to lose, and the military is looking like they are going to turn into a dictators hit squad.

Sure would be nice to be able to defend yourself (or at least go shoot a wild animal to eat while starving) rather than just bend over and take it from everyone.

Hey, don't knock it until you try it.

Many of your fellow Americans seem to enjoy it.

Sometimes they even get lucky and there is a celebrity back there.

Might even be Trump.

He's just attracted to beautiful.

He can't help it.

So pretty up that vertical smile and put it out there.

[xxlt]

(04-22-2017, 09:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is your chance to slap me right out of that world of illusion.

Trump says that 3-5 million people voted illegally in the last election: he also says that Obama wiretapped Trump towers, that Russian interference in our election is fake news,  and that the murder rate is the highest it's been in 47 years.  He also seems to think that Kim Jong-un has been the leader of Korea since the 1990s. And he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11.

Can you help me understand why the FBI/CIA and our state and federal records do not support these claims? Or perhaps they DO support Trump's claims but the MSM is lying about it?  What are the alternative facts?

I notice you don't waste much time acknowledging Factual discrepancies between what is and what Trump says, but when others do, you are quick to question their perception, not Trump's. Is that the secret?

You say there are support spaces somewhere.  Were I to find my way into one, would I be told that all this dissonance between Trump's statements and reality would disappear if I just trusted the leader day to day, and leave all the questions and problems up to his hand-picked White House staff?  Have you been doing it that way? 

Perhaps I could find more trustworthy news sources. Would you recommend Fox? They would have a television in those support spaces, right?

There may be a more intractable problem though. I read a lot of books and traveled a lot places BEFORE Trump was elected. Hard to erase that stuff now--very hard when a US "armada" is steaming towards Korea and we hear that the Iran Nuke deal may be "reviewed" soon.

That's why the great one's had one source of information, verstehen sie?

And they also had special re-education centers for doctors, university types, even regular Joes like you. You understand, Joe?

[xxlt]

(04-22-2017, 09:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Very hard to define others' appeal to the record as "illusion" while avoiding any fact-based discussion yourself.

You pretty much have to keep ACTING like the other guy is wrong and hope he'll start to doubt himself.
That works in cults, I hear.

Wait, are you saying Jim Jones isn't a great leader?

I hear he is. Someone told me that. Actually, I've heard a lot of people saying it.

Great. Really terrific. I know - you're like Crooked Hillary or Lyin' Ted - saying he isn't great because they don't use real Kool Aid.

Jim's punch packs a real punch. Great. Really terrific. It is one of the greatest punches ever. I mean, that's what I've heard a lot of people saying. So, you know, he is a great leader. And of course, he's a good friend of mine.

[xxlt]

(04-22-2017, 11:15 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The problems in Venezuela, hell, South America in general, go much further than public arms ownership.

But that won't stop some from trying to make a connection.

Well, why shouldn't they when there is a connection to be made and absolutely no data to rely on?

I mean, come on man, that's just what smart people do.

Well, one's with the greatest brains anyway.

[xxlt]

(04-23-2017, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "They" lol.  Simple math does all the proving that a rational person would need.  In the past twenty years the number of guns owned by citizens has soared while the violent crime rate continued to drop.  It's not that complicated.

It is also simple fact that dictatorial governments always seek to ban private firearms ownership.  It is also simple fact that high profile left leaning politicians have floated the idea of confiscation, one need look no further than Hillary saying the Australian solution to gun ownership was something worth looking at.

For the unenlightened, could you go in depth to expose the flaws in the Australian solution?

[Dill]

(04-22-2017, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude you are in a thread about Gun Laws in Venezuela bringing up and obsessing about Trump.

I would never say you're wrong; that's a trigger word. I fear I have agitated you instead of helping you seek awareness. I'm out.   

Sure, I made a joke about Trump. Then went back to discussion Venezuela. You jumped in over several posts made some claims you are unable to back.

Of course you are out. 

[Dill]

(04-23-2017, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "They" lol.  Simple math does all the proving that a rational person would need.  In the past twenty years the number of guns owned by citizens has soared while the violent crime rate continued to drop.  It's not that complicated.

It is also simple fact that dictatorial governments always seek to ban private firearms ownership.  It is also simple fact that high profile left leaning politicians have floated the idea of confiscation, one need look no further than Hillary saying the Australian solution to gun ownership was something worth looking at.

One class of rational people doesn’t think that correlation=causation.  They are called statisticians and would need a bit more “proving.”  It’s not that simple.

Among certain demographics—NRA membership, white nationalists, Fox viewers—it is indeed “a simple [one might say “alternative”] fact that dictatorial governments always seek to ban private firearms ownership.” But among other demographics, like historians and legal scholars, it is not a simple fact that dictatorial governments always seek to ban private firearms. (In Saudia Arabia, one can buy a fully automatic AK 47 ON THE BLACK MARKET and then register it.) But it is certainly the case that most non-dictatorial, liberal democracies do restrict or ban private firearms, especially handguns.

It is also a fact, albeit not a “simple” one, that virtually all governments reach for gun restriction during periods of civil unrest. The US is no different in this respect. Eg. In the 1920s, gang and prohibition-related violence led to a national discussion of gun control and the banning and/or restriction of various classes of weapons.  A total ban on handguns was never enacted, but it was supported by many police chiefs and politicians.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2017, 01:17 PM)xxlt Wrote: For the unenlightened, could you go in depth to expose the flaws in the Australian solution?

Well, in this country it would be blatantly unconstitutional.  So there's that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2017, 03:26 PM)Dill Wrote: One class of rational people doesn’t think that correlation=causation.  They are called statisticians and would need a bit more “proving.”  It’s not that simple.

Sure, so please feel free to cite statistics that prove me wrong.

Quote:Among certain demographics—NRA membership, white nationalists, Fox viewers—it is indeed “a simple [one might say “alternative”] fact that dictatorial governments always seek to ban private firearms ownership.” But among other demographics, like historians and legal scholars, it is not a simple fact that dictatorial governments always seek to ban private firearms. (In Saudia Arabia, one can buy a fully automatic AK 47 ON THE BLACK MARKET and then register it.) But it is certainly the case that most non-dictatorial, liberal democracies do restrict or ban private firearms, especially handguns.

I do enjoy your attempt to conflate being pro gun rights to "white nationalism".  It is also certainly the case that most non-dictatorial, liberal democracies do restrict speech in a way that we would find intolerable in the United States.  Next failed point please.

Quote:It is also a fact, albeit not a “simple” one, that virtually all governments reach for gun restriction during periods of civil unrest. The US is no different in this respect

Quote:. Eg. In the 1920s, gang and prohibition-related violence led to a national discussion of gun control and the banning and/or restriction of various classes of weapons.  A total ban on handguns was never enacted, but it was supported by many police chiefs and politicians.  

Yes, it's called the national firearms act.  Of course, advocating current policy via historical precedent would also allow for denying of women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks or voting rights only for landowners.  Please feel free to throw more red herrings in the ring though, it only proves how weak your argument is.

[GMDino]

(04-23-2017, 03:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, in this country it would be blatantly unconstitutional.  So there's that.

Probably why sane, rational people know it won't ever happen so they don't fear monger about it.