Terror in NYC

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The problem is the solutions to problems and it's always the same solution every single time. It's either to ban or limit the object, to more or less, ignore the problem.

Someone goes on a shooting spree? Ban or limit guns.
Someone runs down people in a truck? Ban or limit Muslims.
People are too fat? Ban or limit soda or fast food.

It's always the same solution given.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2017, 01:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh that sure would look stupid. Which means what?

As that was the instrument of death often used in terrorist attacks, such as this. So just like the liberal goes after the gun the conservative goes after the motivation. Which do you think makes more sense? 

[Belsnickel]

(11-02-2017, 01:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The problem is the solutions to problems and it's always the same solution every single time. It's either to ban or limit the object, to more or less, ignore the problem.

Someone goes on a shooting spree? Ban or limit guns.
Someone runs down people in a truck? Ban or limit Muslims.
People are too fat? Ban or limit soda or fast food.

It's always the same solution given.

You can actually categorize all of those into one big group. The solution offered for all of these things is to restrict our rights and/or liberties. That's what they all boil down to.

[hollodero]

(11-02-2017, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As that was the instrument of death often used in terrorist attacks, such as this. So just like the liberal goes after the gun the conservative goes after the motivation. Which do you think makes more sense? 

I smell a trap... but I still feel the way you asked, that's quite difficult to answer, for I don't know what "going after the motivation" is supposed to mean.

Going after rental trucks would obviously make no sense, but going after guns is different and only broad comparisons can make those two equivalent. But how much can policy or policy changes do against a shooter's "motivation". My guess would be, not so much, I guess motivations of a shooter go way beyond politics and agendas, be it liberal or conservative ones. 
- Making it more difficult for people with said dark motivations to get the tools they need to make them a tragic reality, however, does make some sense to me. That's a policy question for politicians. Not saying there's an obvious answer or anything, I just laid that out to answer your question thoroughly. I can see the reason for asking gun control questions after a mass shooting. While the motivation question is a less political and more academical one. 
Terrorist attacks are of course a different thing.

[BmorePat87]

(11-02-2017, 11:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not on the specific topic of immigration.  Just on Trump's jumping in politically.  At least that's what I read from Schumer.

I used it as a catch all since some of the war of terror policies are immigration in nature. I'm also just referring to sentiment in general, not just Schumer. 

(11-02-2017, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which, of course, is insanely hypocritical considering the Dems response to the Las Vegas shooting.

Which is my point. Can we decide on a waiting period since we all do it? 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week? They first debate the debate, then turn to the issue.

(11-02-2017, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Unfortunately that is not something I saw while it was happening. I only heard about it later.

Do I have the time line correct: Trump tweeted out the attack was a "Shumer beauty" and then Shumer responded to the personal attack, calling for Trump to act like G W Bush?  

Yea, he commented on him "taking advantage" of the tragedy. Others did too. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2017, 02:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: I smell a trap... but I still feel the way you asked, that's quite difficult to answer, for I don't know what "going after the motivation" is supposed to mean.

Going after rental trucks would obviously make no sense, but going after guns is different and only broad comparisons can make those two equivalent. But how much can policy or policy changes do against a shooter's "motivation". My guess would be, not so much, I guess motivations of a shooter go way beyond politics and agendas, be it liberal or conservative ones. 
- Making it more difficult for people with said dark motivations to get the tools they need to make them a tragic reality, however, does make some sense to me. That's a policy question for politicians. Not saying there's an obvious answer or anything, I just laid that out to answer your question thoroughly. I can see the reason for asking gun control questions after a mass shooting. While the motivation question is a less political and more academical one. 
Terrorist attacks are of course a different thing.

The conservatives are attacking the motivation of radical Islam and the likelihood it could become more prevalent in the US if immigrants from countries in which radical Islam is a way of life and folks that have adhered to these beliefs are allowed to enter.

The liberal are attacking a device that many use to protect themselves and ignoring the gun. The only time I can remember them focusing on motive as opposed to gun is when that dude shot up the softball practice.   

[hollodero]

(11-02-2017, 02:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The conservatives are attacking the motivation of radical Islam and the likelihood it could become more prevalent in the US if immigrants from countries in which radical Islam is a way of life and folks that have adhered to these beliefs are allowed to enter.

The liberal are attacking a device that many use to protect themselves and ignoring the gun. The only time I can remember them focusing on motive as opposed to gun is when that dude shot up the softball practice.   

Yeah, you do throw two separate instances into one pot. Las Vegas is a shooting, triggering gun control questions. Has nothing to do with Islam. Has nothing to do with the NY terror attack. When you oppose the raising of the gun control question, you have to link that to the suited incident, not to radical Islam.

Hence my asking, what to do against the motivations of the Las Vegas shooter. And why I said that policy-wise I think raising the gun control question does make more sense then asking about the shooter's motivation. Were he a self-declared ISIS fighter, my stance might differ. He was not though.

Regarding radical Islam, I tend to agree with conservatives to some degree on that one. So we can't really argue about that specifically.

[GMDino]

Quote:Critics denounced President Donald Trump's Thursday morning tweets in which he called for the death penalty for the suspect in this week's New York City attack.


Backtracking on his earlier calls for the alleged attacker to be sent to Guantanamo Bay, the president said that a federal trial would be a more efficient way to punish him.

Immigration attorney and civil rights advocate David Leopold noted that his concern with the tweets lay not in the question of Sayfullo Saipov's guilt in the case of the murders of eight people, but with Trump's reckless interference with the justice system.

Nixon quickly backtracked after he was roundly criticized that hed prejudiced the outcome of the Manson murder trial https://t.co/OFw5N3mxvd

— David Leopold (@DavidLeopold) November 2, 2017

With the president on record demanding capital punishment in a trial that hasn't yet begun for a case that's still being investigated, legal experts worried that defense attorneys could argue that a fair trial is now impossible, potentially resulting in a mistrial.

On social media, a number of critics expressed grave concerns with the president's careless tweets.

Trump's use of presidential platform to call for death penalty for defendant in ongoing federal case MUST be soundly rebuked by DOJ. Enough. https://t.co/rZt93zqpJu

— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) November 2, 2017

Trump helped the terrorist with this tweet. Now prosecutors will have to spend time dealing with motions that the jury pool is tainted. https://t.co/YJk05aem6U

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 2, 2017

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/02/legal-experts-aghast-trumps-careless-call-death-penalty-nyc-suspect

The POTUS is so upset you'd think this was done by some innocent black kids.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-02-2017, 12:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: Putting the baggage of the word "resistance" aside: Why haven't you? To me, that's one of the most interesting questions surrounding the rise of the Trump. People like you that is, if I may put you in a "people like you" box for once. (It's ok, it's an 100% honorable box.)




I don't know about "insanely" though. Going after easily available guns is somewhat different then going after people.

Why hasn't he gone full resistance mode?  Because he's intellectually honest.  You can dislike a person and not think everything he says and does is the dumbest thing ever said or done.  I would say the reaction to him from people on the left has probably made it easier as true colors are revealed when you disagree with someone more than when you agree with them. 

 

[hollodero]

(11-02-2017, 03:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You can dislike a person and not think everything he says and does is the dumbest thing ever said or done.

Oh sure you can, I know that. Then again, Trump is the guy who actually said a border wall needs to be see through so people don't get hit by a hundred pounds of drugs thrown over, so there's that dumb thing and then some. Many things he says are indeed actually, say, not really ultra smart, there's no political color or any disliking connected to that statement.

(11-02-2017, 03:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say the reaction to him from people on the left has probably made it easier as true colors are revealed when you disagree with someone more than when you agree with them.

Maybe so. It's not about them though.


---- Edit Sorry, this really is off topic and that thread doesn't deserve that. I'll stop it.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-02-2017, 04:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh sure you can, I know that. Then again, Trump is the guy who actually said a border wall needs to be see through so people don't get hit by a hundred pounds of drugs thrown over, so there's that dumb thing and then some. Many things he says are indeed actually, say, not really ultra smart, there's no political color connected to that statement.



Maybe so. It's not about them though.


---- Edit Sorry, this really is off topic and that thread doesn't deserve that. I'll stop it.

It is about them when you decide, "I don't want to be like that."  I didn't like a lot about Obama, but I wasn't about to join the crazy people and the birth certificate, or yelling treason every other day.  

Well dammit I didn't notice your edit until afterwards.

[hollodero]

(11-02-2017, 05:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It is about them when you decide, "I don't want to be like that."  I didn't like a lot about Obama, but I wasn't about to join the crazy people and the birth certificate, or yelling treason every other day.  

Well dammit I didn't notice your edit until afterwards.

:) I guess one off topic post more or less doesn't change much anyways now. So that being said, believing Trump says a concerning amount of dumb stuff isn't really an extreme stance to me that compares to being a Kenya truther.

Maybe I can get the curve to the topic at hand when saying a lottery system really seems like a strange way to handle immigration.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-02-2017, 05:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: :) I guess one off topic post more or less doesn't change much anyways now. So that being said, believing Trump says a concerning amount of dumb stuff isn't really an extreme stance to me that compares to being a Kenya truther.

Maybe I can get the curve to the topic at hand when saying a lottery system really seems like a strange way to handle immigration.

How about something like on the Things Trump Says thread pointing out that he misspelled a word in a tweet?  

[hollodero]

(11-02-2017, 05:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How about something like on the Things Trump Says thread pointing out that he misspelled a word in a tweet?  

Oh some critics of Trump might take it too far sometimes and start being a bit petty. That's possible,see "twoscoopgate". That doesn't change anything about Trump though; you seem to act as if it would. Extrapolating that, I guess many people tolerate Trump mainly because they do not want to agree with people they dislike... :) Isn't that a conundrum now.

- I guess I now completely derail that thread after explicitly having said that I would stop doing that. I have no honor.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-02-2017, 05:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh some critics of Trump might take it too far sometimes and start being a bit petty. That's possible,see "twoscoopgate". That doesn't change anything about Trump though; you seem to act as if it would. Extrapolating that, I guess many people tolerate Trump mainly because they do not want to agree with people they dislike... :) Isn't that a conundrum now.

- I guess I now completely derail that thread after explicitly having said that I would stop doing that. I have no honor.

No you don't, and I'm ashamed for you.  You will not be feasting with Odin. Or I guess it would be Woden for you.

[Dill]

(11-02-2017, 11:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am trying hard not to enter into the fray on things like that, though, because far too often I do nothing but make the situation worse by attempting to counter erroneous talking points. I'm trying to remind myself that in situations like those, emotions rule the day and logic is pushed aside. These threads are not places for reasoned policy discussions (though the whole board is often not the place for this) and so trying to bring that to the table isn't always welcome.

Just a couple of quick comments on your interventions, Bels, which I appreciate.

1. I do think some reasoned policy discussion takes place at times and in the far corners of some threads. People ought not to give up on the possibility. They should avoid behaviors which derail them.

2. I, for one, appreciate it when you "counter erroneous talking points." I don't like the term "calling out," since it connotes rather a too aggressive stance for civil discussion, especially where philosophical and value differences are being aired and explored. (And just because a poster calls out something/someone doesn't mean that poster is not the one in error. )

3. A recent thread, "White Privilege bolstered by teaching math," went predictably south soon after the initial OP was posted.  In the midst of that brouhaha,  you posted the following:

I'm curious. Has anyone expressing an opinion, negative or positive, about Dr. Gutierrez' statements read the entirety of them in context? Have you read the supporting documentation and statistical information, if it exists? Can you explain your reasoning for agreeing or disagreeing with her statements in a manner that displays an understanding of the base sociological and anthropological concepts used to make these assertions?


You did not counter or anything or "call out" anyone. You just asked a question which also introduced a standard. In retrospect, both had rather a salutary effect on the following discussion. Some people, at least, stopped throwing out unsupported claims.  The issues raised by the OP were discussed in more depth. 

So I would agree with SSF here and urge you to be less reticent in discussing issues, and to recognize that your interventions affect threads in different ways and generally elevate rather than lower discussion.

[Dill]

(11-02-2017, 02:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, he commented on him "taking advantage" of the tragedy. Others did too. 

I'm not sure he would have commented had he not been directly called out by the president. Perhaps he would have.

Here is how I see the history of this conflict.

Since before Columbine, various liberal groups have immediately called for gun control after every publicized shooting tragedy, reaching a crescendo around Sandy Hook in 2012.

As a counter to this, conservatives, especially Fox commentators and the NRA, began calling for "respect" and de-politicization of tragedy and the like.

Liberals noticed, however, that when radical Islamists were the apparent shooters, politicization began immediately with Fox et al., and so began calling them out on the apparent double standard. Trump makes this more obvious, of course, always leading the charge against Islamist violence while "waiting till the facts are in" or calling for "prayer" before judging white-implicated violence.

So now we are in a position where either type of tragedy--white male shooter and radical Islamist--has one side or the other struggling to sneak in an "I told you so now we've got to do something" without appearing to have "politicized a tragedy for party gain."

The worst part comes with recognition that policy needs to address each type of violence, but whoever raises the issue while public attention is focused on it is accused of seeking "political gain" or some such, and waiting till the furor dies down pretty much insures nothing will happen.

There are responsible parties on both sides of political spectrum are thinking conundrum through right now. (If you think of Democrats and Establishment Republicans as "both sides," that is.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-were-really-saying-when-we-say-dont-politicize-tragedy/2017/10/02/33e28fb8-a784-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.75f6a18ab290

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453341/politicizing-tragedy-trump-manhattan-terrorist-attack-las-vegas-shooting-responses

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145127/politicize-mass-shootings

[Belsnickel]

(11-02-2017, 06:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a couple of quick comments on your interventions, Bels, which I appreciate.

...

So I would agree with SSF here and urge you to be less reticent in discussing issues, and to recognize that your interventions affect threads in different ways and generally elevate rather than lower discussion.

I just have to be honest, though. There are times when I don't follow my own advice. I know that I do it, and it is rightfully pointed out. I certainly don't claim to be perfect in my efforts, but I do need to work on this a bit more. Be more cognizant of when I am not adding anything to the discussion and maybe not hit the post button when that is the case.

[Dill]

(11-02-2017, 03:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/02/legal-experts-aghast-trumps-careless-call-death-penalty-nyc-suspect

The POTUS is so upset you'd think this was done by some innocent black kids.

This is one more of those behaviors suggesting the holder of the most important office in the world knows less about US law than most anyone around him.

I think the call to shift Saipov to Guantanamo plays on the perception of some that criminals get off easy in the US or avoid punishment through lengthy trials and appeals generated by liberal lawyers.

For Trump, and maybe some of his supporters, Gitmo might seem the proper, authoritarian shortcut.  But it appears to be a legal mess.

A Marine general overseeing legal matters there  was just jailed for ok'ing the resignation of civil lawyers who were definding Al Nashiri, the guy accused of masterminding the attack on the USS Cole back in 2000.  The guy has been in custody since 2002. No trial in 15 years. And his lawyers were complaining that their communications were being monitored.
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/gitmo-marine-general-confined-uss-cole-2017-11/

Terrorists caught in the US, on the other hand, tend to get a rather speedy trial and life/death sentences.  Tsernaev, for example, got the death penalty 2 years after his crime and is on death row now. Had he been sent to Gitmo, his case would be swamped in juridictional questions.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2017, 12:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: Putting the baggage of the word "resistance" aside: Why haven't you? To me, that's one of the most interesting questions surrounding the rise of the Trump. People like you that is, if I may put you in a "people like you" box for once. (It's ok, it's an 100% honorable box.)

It's not very complicated at all.  Trump isn't doing anything he didn't say he would do when he was running for office.  The vast majority of the things he is doing would have been done by any GOP candidate who became POTUS.  I don't agree with a lot of it, but the man was elected in the same way we've elected all our Presidents.  I see no difference in "resisting" his agenda then the people who "resisted" everything Obama did.  Yes, Obama wasn't nearly as extreme in most ways and he certainly is a much more personable human being than Trump.  That doesn't mean people can't vehemently disagree with his policies.  He was right when he said elections have consequences, simply throwing a tantrum because the person you don't like won is childish to me.

It also has to do with the way so much of the objections are stated and carried out.  Don't want immigration enforcement?  Fine, then be honest and say that anyone who wants to come here doesn't have to obey our immigration laws.  What you don't get to do, and where you lose me, is claiming we have no right to enforce immigration laws or that doing so is "racist".  You don't like Betsy DeVos because of her policies, fine.  What you don't get to do is obstruct her from even visiting a school in her official capacity.  You don't want Milo to speak at your school, fine, protest away.  What you don't get to do is attack people who are going to see him, start fires and vandalize property. 

The day after the election there were calls to impeach Trump.  Maxine Waters has been shrieking "IMPEACH" from day one.  I can't take anyone seriously who goes for the nuclear option as the first option. 

In short, I don't like extremism.  I also don't think everyone who doesn't share my opinion on every issue is either an idiot or evil.  I'm staunchly pro-choice but I also understand that many pro-life (anti-choice) people honestly believe that an abortion is the murder of a baby.  I don't agree, but I don't think any of us would stand by and watch someone kill a baby if we honestly thought that was occurring. 

Lastly, I loathe inconsistent opinions, nothing turns me off to a movement or an person faster.  Both sides are guilty of this, but it seems the party currently on the outside looking in is always the worst offender. 

Quote:I don't know about "insanely" though. Going after easily available guns is somewhat different then going after people.

This is a whole can of worms, but "easily available" is the norm in the United States and has been forever.  My father mentioned shopping as a kid and there was a barrel of military surplus rifles at the end of the aisle, you just pick it up, add it to the cart, pay for it and leave.  There is also zero consistency on the anti-gun side.  They oppose Trump's tough on crime stance, pointing out that violent crime had been dropping every year since 1992.  They then completely ignore this fact and claim that we currently suffer from an "epidemic" of gun violence. 

I could go on for pages but I'm sure you get the point.