Terror in NYC

[BmorePat87]

(11-02-2017, 07:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 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

Hence the crux of my post: what's our waiting period?

[Belsnickel]

(11-02-2017, 09:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Hence the crux of my post: what's our waiting period?

That's the difficult thing, to me. Our society moves on to the next thing so quickly that things that happen lose purchase in the public eye and so get dropped off of the political agenda. Essentially, the two parties know they can get hyped over these issues because most people will forget they did nothing in a couple of weeks, anyway. Then there is the idea for some things that the timeframe between events can be so short that you are constantly caught up in the "thoughts and prayers" period because it is never really ending.

We just need more evidence based policy decisions in our legislatures around the country. Then it doesn't matter what the timing is, the policy is sound. But that would involve governing instead of playing the political games.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-02-2017, 12:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: kinda hard to go after rental trucks

The push will self driving cars will get ramped up.

[hollodero]

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

Except for golfing... (I do know that is petty.) He also said he wanted healthcare for all, fraction of the cost, preexisting conditions covered... the plan the Reps came up with (he himself had none and obviously has no clue how healthcare works) kept none of those promises. He wanted Mexico to pay for a wall. He sure did not drain any swamp and made no visible effort to do so, regarding his choices for his cabinet alone proves that. There's more examples, there sure are examples where he did as he said, like cutting regulations, pulling out of trade deals or Gorsuch (although his contribution to that happening wasn't that big). But he made quite some utopic promises he did not keep, and did things like staying in Afghanistan he sure did not mention on the campaign trail. He also promised you and everyone his tax returns... and while I see why one might not care, he still broke a promise and that's still significant. He said he aimed for a balanced budget (now the tax cuts are not out yet, but that's not going to happen). etc.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The vast majority of the things he is doing would have been done by any GOP candidate who became POTUS.

Now that is not true. Other GOP presidents would not have claimed there are millions of illegal votes because they couldn't stand not winning the popular vote. Other GOP presidents would have reacted differently to Charlottesville. Other GOP presidents would handle North Korea in more measured terms. Other GOP presidents would be tougher on Russia. Other GOP presidents would not have claimed CC is a scam the world invented to take advantage of the US. (Well, OK, not sure about that last one actually.) But that's "just" the policy side, and policy is not everything being a president is all about. Other GOP presidents would not mix up personal business and presidency... other GOP presidents would not demand personal loyalty from FBI directors or the head of the DOJ and other servants of the country... other GOP... I just stop there.

There's also the chaotic administration. Many posts are not yet filled, still dozens of appointed people left already or were fired. No other GOP president would have chosen such incompetent people, or his daughter and son-in-law responsible for everything for that matter. And that the Trump admin is chaotic... well do I really need to argue that any further. Any other GOP president would have let go of Flynn the very minute there are dramatic warnings raised by Homeland security and others, just to gor for one example. Especially had they already known of an ongoing investigation and were warned by Obama personally.
No other GOP president would have been called a moron by his secretary of state, that I'm just quite certain of without proof.

And third but not less important, a president is a public figure and acts as a role model, and Trump just fails spectacularly in that respect. He is narcissistic, makes everything about himself, declares war on the media and speculates about shutting down outlets he does not like. He picked a fight with NFL players. He spreads FOX talking points and made them a presidential think tank. He attacks the judiciary. He promotes conspiracy theories about Dems. He personally and in times viciously attacks people from his presidential bully pulpit. Plus, most of the time he has no idea what he's talking about. That is not my take, that is obvious and you know that as well. E.g. he bans transgenders from the military and fails to put that order into the proper chain of command. I do not need to put in my perspective, his twitter account is a perfect example of all of these things. Nope, a Jeb Bush or anyone would never have acted in that manner.
I could very well fill pages with that too. But you know about these instances and many more, and while you might disagree on specific points, I can't quite imagine you totally refute the painted picture as a whole.

Plus, he's an international laughing stock, and I feel the damage done there will last for centuries to come already. The disrespect the US shows towards existing agreements makes sure no one will be happily inclined to reach further agreements with the US. I also have a hard time picturing Jeb Bush openly lusting for Macron's wife or giving ominious hand signals to Putin, but sadly that's already detail. Respect for the US is shrinking under Trump (I am Eurocentric though, here the loss of respect seems quite sgnificant); while fear has probably risen, but that's not contradictory.

This all, I feel, should be reasons to be gravely concerned about Trump. Some more, some maybe less. And I barely mentioned the whole russia conundrum swirling around him and many of his people. Imho this flags turn redder by the day.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't agree with a lot of it

I figured. That's why I asked.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I don't think people throw tantrums just because they do not like him. There's a bit more to it than just personal antipathy.
And sure you can disagree with Obama policies. It's getting strange if someone feels like not really doing so because of Reps. You see, that's what I feel you are doing, just the other way round.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I more or less agree with all of that. My point would be again, it's not about some college kids or PC policepeople or duplicitous Dems or these folk. It's about Trump, not them. That's why I said the word resistance comes with baggage I want to neglect, that baggage being liberals using that term.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

Again understandable. Again it's not about Maxine Waters either, and the tendency to make it about some figures on the left is astonishing to me. The duality of the American political brain is something I had to learn about and what I will never fully grasp.
Just to illustrate what I mean, a bunch of really annoying people are anti-right wing populism (or Nazis or... doesn't matter what exactly) in my country. I would not start tolerating right-wing populism and reason that by pointing out how annoying these people are. If I share an opinion with them, it's by default and means no emboldenment and no further association.

What actually moves me is the simple question, how bad do things have to get before a Trump stance finally is not about Democrats.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In short, I don't like extremism.

One might argue Trump is quite an extremist of sorts though. The more extreme right sure loves him.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   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.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly on that topic.

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

Hm. I can get behing both sides are guilty of it, but I have seen too much inconsistency from the right wing side that I could really get behing the stance that the left is way worse. But that debate would lead nowhere, so.
Is Trump really consistent to you?

(11-02-2017, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I get what you're saying. I am not sure if you're not oversimplifying that a bit. But my perspective gets irrelevant soon, I am not an American, never inhaled the country, have no idea about the everyday experiences of US citizens, so there's that. From my standpoint the US suffers under a decade-long gun violence epidemic. It's hard for me to see it more nuanced when gun deaths in the US are ten times higher than in otherwise comparable places like Germany.
Being "against" a tough on crime stance is a bit general. It always depends on what Trump wants to do exactly. Stop and Frisk or a renewed war on drugs are policies one can very well be opposed to without betraying a "gun violence epidemic"-stance. Now if a Dem claims epidemic in one instance and points to a dropping víolent crime rate in another - and I'm sure some did that - you do have a point and I see it. In many instances, I think it's a bit more complicated though.

[Dill]

(11-03-2017, 11:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: Except for golfing... (I do know that is petty.) He also said he wanted healthcare for all, fraction of the cost, preexisting conditions covered... the plan the Reps came up with (he himself had none and obviously has no clue how healthcare works) kept none of those promises. He wanted Mexico to pay for a wall. He sure did not drain any swamp and made no visible effort to do so, regarding his choices for his cabinet alone proves that. There's more examples, there sure are examples where he did as he said, like cutting regulations, pulling out of trade deals or Gorsuch (although his contribution to that happening wasn't that big). But he made quite some utopic promises he did not keep, and did things like staying in Afghanistan he sure did not mention on the campaign trail. He also promised you and everyone his tax returns... and while I see why one might not care, he still broke a promise and that's still significant. He said he aimed for a balanced budget (now the tax cuts are not out yet, but that's not going to happen). etc.

Now that is not true. Other GOP presidents would not have claimed there are millions of illegal votes because they couldn't stand not winning the popular vote. Other GOP presidents would have reacted differently to Charlottesville. Other GOP presidents would handle North Korea in more measured terms. Other GOP presidents would be tougher on Russia. Other GOP presidents would not have claimed CC is a scam the world invented to take advantage of the US. (Well, OK, not sure about that last one actually.) But that's "just" the policy side, and policy is not everything being a president is all about. Other GOP presidents would not mix up personal business and presidency... other GOP presidents would not demand personal loyalty from FBI directors or the head of the DOJ and other servants of the country... other GOP... I just stop there.

There's also the chaotic administration. Many posts are not yet filled, still dozens of appointed people left already or were fired. No other GOP president would have chosen such incompetent people, or his daughter and son-in-law responsible for everything for that matter. And that the Trump admin is chaotic... well do I really need to argue that any further. Any other GOP president would have let go of Flynn the very minute there are dramatic warnings raised by Homeland security and others, just to gor for one example. Especially had they already known of an ongoing investigation and were warned by Obama personally.
No other GOP president would have been called a moron by his secretary of state, that I'm just quite certain of without proof.

And third but not less important, a president is a public figure and acts as a role model, and Trump just fails spectacularly in that respect. He is narcissistic, makes everything about himself, declares war on the media and speculates about shutting down outlets he does not like. He picked a fight with NFL players. He spreads FOX talking points and made them a presidential think tank. He attacks the judiciary. He promotes conspiracy theories about Dems. He personally and in times viciously attacks people from his presidential bully pulpit. Plus, most of the time he has no idea what he's talking about. That is not my take, that is obvious and you know that as well. E.g. he bans transgenders from the military and fails to put that order into the proper chain of command. I do not need to put in my perspective, his twitter account is a perfect example of all of these things. Nope, a Jeb Bush or anyone would never have acted in that manner.
I could very well fill pages with that too. But you know about these instances and many more, and while you might disagree on specific points, I can't quite imagine you totally refute the painted picture as a whole.

Plus, he's an international laughing stock, and I feel the damage done there will last for centuries to come already. The disrespect the US shows towards existing agreements makes sure no one will be happily inclined to reach further agreements with the US. I also have a hard time picturing Jeb Bush openly lusting for Macron's wife or giving ominious hand signals to Putin, but sadly that's already detail. Respect for the US is shrinking under Trump (I am Eurocentric though, here the loss of respect seems quite sgnificant); while fear has probably risen, but that's not contradictory.

This all, I feel, should be reasons to be gravely concerned about Trump. Some more, some maybe less. And I barely mentioned the whole russia conundrum swirling around him and many of his people. Imho this flags turn redder by the day.

Hollo I think it's time you stopped just shouting jealous hatred at our president and put forward rational, evidence-based arguments to support your claims. LOL.

Seriously, though, that is a masterful summary of Trump-so-far and worth saving.  

One important point I would add is his constant attack on the press. Both W. and Obama have affirmed the importance of the free press as a check on presidential power--even when it bashes them.  Trump works day and night to undermine the Luegenpresse MSM while tweeting out Fox talking points. No WH press corps has ever so openly lied on a daily basis. Not even during the Vietnam War.  Fit that in with his acknowledged frustration at being unable to control the FBI and the Russia investigation, and you have the mindset of a dictator, not the leader of a liberal western democracy.

Minorly, under "role model" you forgot that speech to the Boy Scouts--children--with the sexual innuendo and nasty campaign reminisces about Hillary. Talk about lack of audience awareness.

Given the MASS of acknowledged, documented misbehavior from the current POTUS, the real focus should no longer be on him but on the systemic dysfunction which keeps him in power.  Probably a majority or near majority of Americans recognized his instability and unfitness for office during the primary. They knew his administration would be like this, and saw zero chance he would school himself on the job and "grow" into his responsibilities. Yet that did not prevent his election nor does it so far hinder his continuance in office.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2017, 11:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: Except for golfing... (I do know that is petty.) He also said he wanted healthcare for all, fraction of the cost, preexisting conditions covered... the plan the Reps came up with (he himself had none and obviously has no clue how healthcare works) kept none of those promises. He wanted Mexico to pay for a wall. He sure did not drain any swamp and made no visible effort to do so, regarding his choices for his cabinet alone proves that. There's more examples, there sure are examples where he did as he said, like cutting regulations, pulling out of trade deals or Gorsuch (although his contribution to that happening wasn't that big). But he made quite some utopic promises he did not keep, and did things like staying in Afghanistan he sure did not mention on the campaign trail. He also promised you and everyone his tax returns... and while I see why one might not care, he still broke a promise and that's still significant. He said he aimed for a balanced budget (now the tax cuts are not out yet, but that's not going to happen). etc.

Believe me when I say I'm not being confrontational, but this response makes me think you didn't actually read my point.  I said much of what he has done would have been done by any GOP candidate.  I made no mention of what he said he would do that he has not.  Anyone could make a miles long list of campaign promises that weren't fulfilled for any politician in office.  Here's the thing, in three years we'll get to vote again and if the citizens of this country feel he did a bad job they will vote him out.  That's all the "resistance" we need.

Quote:Now that is not true. Other GOP presidents would not have claimed there are millions of illegal votes because they couldn't stand not winning the popular vote. Other GOP presidents would have reacted differently to Charlottesville. Other GOP presidents would handle North Korea in more measured terms. Other GOP presidents would be tougher on Russia. Other GOP presidents would not have claimed CC is a scam the world invented to take advantage of the US. (Well, OK, not sure about that last one actually.) But that's "just" the policy side, and policy is not everything being a president is all about. Other GOP presidents would not mix up personal business and presidency... other GOP presidents would not demand personal loyalty from FBI directors or the head of the DOJ and other servants of the country... other GOP... I just stop there.

You're focusing on aspects of his unpleasant personality.  Nixon is the closest example in recent history, his foibles were at least as severe as Trump.  I'll address a few of your points in turn.  Cville, Trump was trying, poorly, to bring up the fact that left wing violence at rallies was rampant over the past year and far more common that right wing violence.  The problem is left wing violence gets very little play on most media outlets.  His statement was poorly worded, timed and delivered, but I got what he was trying to say.  Handling N. Korea as we always have has produced shit results.  I don't mind how Trump is handling them at all.  The N Korea problem has to be solved soon and permanently, and we need to start putting the screws to China on this in a major way.

Quote:There's also the chaotic administration. Many posts are not yet filled, still dozens of appointed people left already or were fired. No other GOP president would have chosen such incompetent people, or his daughter and son-in-law responsible for everything for that matter. And that the Trump admin is chaotic... well do I really need to argue that any further. Any other GOP president would have let go of Flynn the very minute there are dramatic warnings raised by Homeland security and others, just to gor for one example. Especially had they already known of an ongoing investigation and were warned by Obama personally.
No other GOP president would have been called a moron by his secretary of state, that I'm just quite certain of without proof.

No arguments here, but it brings me back to my previous point, elections will be held in three years.  We'll get to decide then.

Quote:And third but not less important, a president is a public figure and acts as a role model, and Trump just fails spectacularly in that respect. He is narcissistic, makes everything about himself, declares war on the media and speculates about shutting down outlets he does not like. He picked a fight with NFL players. He spreads FOX talking points and made them a presidential think tank. He attacks the judiciary. He promotes conspiracy theories about Dems. He personally and in times viciously attacks people from his presidential bully pulpit. Plus, most of the time he has no idea what he's talking about. That is not my take, that is obvious and you know that as well. E.g. he bans transgenders from the military and fails to put that order into the proper chain of command. I do not need to put in my perspective, his twitter account is a perfect example of all of these things. Nope, a Jeb Bush or anyone would never have acted in that manner.
I could very well fill pages with that too. But you know about these instances and many more, and while you might disagree on specific points, I can't quite imagine you totally refute the painted picture as a whole.

You completely miss that, for many people, this is a positive.  They appreciate his caustic attacks on those they perceive as being anti-American.  I'll reiterate, he did this the entire time he was campaigning, he is no different now than he was then.  He still won the election, the citizens got what they wanted.

Quote:Plus, he's an international laughing stock, and I feel the damage done there will last for centuries to come already. The disrespect the US shows towards existing agreements makes sure no one will be happily inclined to reach further agreements with the US. I also have a hard time picturing Jeb Bush openly lusting for Macron's wife or giving ominious hand signals to Putin, but sadly that's already detail. Respect for the US is shrinking under Trump (I am Eurocentric though, here the loss of respect seems quite sgnificant); while fear has probably risen, but that's not contradictory.

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but many, if not most, Americans could give less than two shits about this.  Many Americans believe that Europe has sponged off the US since WW2, spending money on themselves instead of their own defense while the US subsidized their defense and protected their existence from an expansionist totalitarian state.  Again, many Americans feel like Europe doesn't care about that and looks down their nose at the US, with the possible exception of the UK.  Right or wrong, many Americans feel aggrieved and believe that we have been taken advantage of, Trump expresses those feeling in a way they appreciate.  Lastly, the thinking is who exactly will Europe turn to if the decide to bail on the US?  Russia?  Not with a GDP less than Italy.  China?  The UK has already started down this road in some ways, I don't think this would end well for anyone involved but China and I think most European leaders know this.

Quote:This all, I feel, should be reasons to be gravely concerned about Trump. Some more, some maybe less. And I barely mentioned the whole russia conundrum swirling around him and many of his people. Imho this flags turn redder by the day.

Feeling concerned is fine.  Screaming hysterically every day about every thing is not and it causes people to tune out.

Quote:I don't think people throw tantrums just because they do not like him. There's a bit more to it than just personal antipathy.
And sure you can disagree with Obama policies. It's getting strange if someone feels like not really doing so because of Reps. You see, that's what I feel you are doing, just the other way round.

Again, there's an election in three years.  The system has worked rather well for longer than most countries have been in existence under their current style of governance.  I suppose I have more faith in the system than the perpetually outraged.

Quote:I more or less agree with all of that. My point would be again, it's not about some college kids or PC policepeople or duplicitous Dems or these folk. It's about Trump, not them. That's why I said the word resistance comes with baggage I want to neglect, that baggage being liberals using that term.

No, you can't discard certain elements of a movement and then say look at the pure product left.  To even begin to try would require utter condemnation of these elements from the people above them.  This hasn't even remotely happened and, in reality, the rhetoric is getting worse.  One need look no further than the recent Victory for Latinos PAC add in Virginia and the utter lack of Democratic response to it.

Quote:Again understandable. Again it's not about Maxine Waters either, and the tendency to make it about some figures on the left is astonishing to me. The duality of the American political brain is something I had to learn about and what I will never fully grasp.
Just to illustrate what I mean, a bunch of really annoying people are anti-right wing populism (or Nazis or... doesn't matter what exactly) in my country. I would not start tolerating right-wing populism and reason that by pointing out how annoying these people are. If I share an opinion with them, it's by default and means no emboldenment and no further association.

Waters is only the tip of the iceberg.  I use her as an example for the precise reasons you discount her, she is well known.  

 

Quote:What actually moves me is the simple question, how bad do things have to get before a Trump stance finally is not about Democrats.

When he actually does something worthy of impeachment.

Quote:One might argue Trump is quite an extremist of sorts though. The more extreme right sure loves him.

I agree Trump has extreme views.  The second point bugs the shit out of me.  Any POTUS who wanted to enforce immigration law would be beloved by the extreme right, that doesn't make the POTUS in question an extreme right POTUS.  Just because you have a policy that aligns with an extreme group doesn't make you extreme.  The policy is extreme and unacceptable or it isn't.  Who likes it doesn't mean a damn thing to me.

Quote:Hm. I can get behing both sides are guilty of it, but I have seen too much inconsistency from the right wing side that I could really get behing the stance that the left is way worse. But that debate would lead nowhere, so.
Is Trump really consistent to you?

I don't expect consistency from Trump, you may recall I labeled him as mercurial some time ago.  I'm talking about consistency on a broad level and, yes, both sides are equally guilty of this sin. 

Quote:I get what you're saying. I am not sure if you're not oversimplifying that a bit. But my perspective gets irrelevant soon, I am not an American, never inhaled the country, have no idea about the everyday experiences of US citizens, so there's that. From my standpoint the US suffers under a decade-long gun violence epidemic. It's hard for me to see it more nuanced when gun deaths in the US are ten times higher than in otherwise comparable places like Germany.

Any freedom is going to be abused by a certain percentage of the citizenry.  The freedom to own a firearm has existed since the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  If you have access to firearms some people will use them unlawfully.  The US does not feel that that percentage should cause the removal of that right from the 99.99% of citizens who do not abuse it.  Also, our national culture is wildly different than Germany.

Quote:Being "against" a tough on crime stance is a bit general. It always depends on what Trump wants to do exactly. Stop and Frisk or a renewed war on drugs are policies one can very well be opposed to without betraying a "gun violence epidemic"-stance. Now if a Dem claims epidemic in one instance and points to a dropping víolent crime rate in another - and I'm sure some did that - you do have a point and I see it. In many instances, I think it's a bit more complicated though.

You could start very simply, by increasing sentences on people who use a gun in the commission of a crime.  Instead we are moving in the opposite direction, letting more and more criminal free and reducing sentences.  As a result the crime rate has risen for the first time in twenty-five years and this current year will see another increase.  I speak about this with officers from other agencies every day.  We have both hands tied behind our back now to the point that I have literally heard criminals say, "you guys can't do shit to us anymore".  I'm sure the left leaning state government will find a way to blame guns for the crime increase rather than the utter failure of the current soft on crime policies they have enacted.  We all know it's going to get worse before it gets better and forearm ownership has nothing to do with it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2017, 12:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Given the MASS of acknowledged, documented misbehavior from the current POTUS, the real focus should no longer be on him but on the systemic dysfunction which keeps him in power.  Probably a majority or near majority of Americans recognized his instability and unfitness for office during the primary. They knew his administration would be like this, and saw zero chance he would school himself on the job and "grow" into his responsibilities. Yet that did not prevent his election nor does it so far hinder his continuance in office.

I deleted your sucking up to hollo to address this point.  Are you saying Trump should be impeached?  If so, why don't you just say Trump should be impeached instead of tap dancing around it?

[hollodero]

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Believe me when I say I'm not being confrontational, but this response makes me think you didn't actually read my point.  I said much of what he has done would have been done by any GOP candidate.  I made no mention of what he said he would do that he has not.

:) That's perfectly fine. It's quite possible in general that I have comprehension issues - second language and all.

In this case, you said "Trump isn't doing anything he didn't say he would do when he was running for office." - which I probably read as "Trump is only doing things he said he would do", ignoring the double negation. With the double negation in place, there might be only golfing (which fits perfectly as a contradiction, but of course it's unimportant).

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Anyone could make a miles long list of campaign promises that weren't fulfilled for any politician in office.  Here's the thing, in three years we'll get to vote again and if the citizens of this country feel he did a bad job they will vote him out.  That's all the "resistance" we need.

Sure, everyone can. I do not demand any action to remove him from office, I just wonder why his approval rating still is in the thirties. I know I'm supposed to believe that is actually very low, but to me it is not.
How would you answer that question? All things considered, do you approve or disapprove of Trump's tenure in office?

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're focusing on aspects of his unpleasant personality.  Nixon is the closest example in recent history, his foibles were at least as severe as Trump.  I'll address a few of your points in turn.  Cville, Trump was trying, poorly, to bring up the fact that left wing violence at rallies was rampant over the past year and far more common that right wing violence.  The problem is left wing violence gets very little play on most media outlets.  His statement was poorly worded, timed and delivered, but I got what he was trying to say.  Handling N. Korea as we always have has produced shit results.  I don't mind how Trump is handling them at all.  The N Korea problem has to be solved soon and permanently, and we need to start putting the screws to China on this in a major way.

I'm focusing on his personality in the paragraph I dedicated to that very aspect, but I tried not to talk exclusively about what bad character treats he displays. I feel it's still an important aspect.
About violence from the left, I have to remain silent on that one. Maybe you got that right, maybe not, I do not know and hear all kinds of different takes. However, I do not see the US suffering a left wing violence epidemic. Maybe Trump does have a point somewhere, but as you said, if he had it was well disguised in an overall horrific response that only made the David Dukes cheer. I know I know, just because the extremes cheer doesn't make things inherently extreme, but in this case... ah, nevermind.

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You completely miss that, for many people, this is a positive. They appreciate his caustic attacks on those they perceive as being anti-American.  I'll reiterate, he did this the entire time he was campaigning, he is no different now than he was then.  He still won the election, the citizens got what they wanted.

Do you think it is a positive?

(And I won't even get started on "what the citizens wanted", because 3 millions more wanted Hillary, and I do not say that because I want to be cute, but because it's a bit tough to claim "it's what the people wanted" when more of 50% of voters actually did not want that. It doesn't matter and Trump is of course the legitimate president nevertheless, but it's true.)

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you,

That's alright, you were very gentle, who else would be better suited.

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: but many, if not most, Americans could give less than two shits about this.  Many Americans believe that Europe has sponged off the US since WW2, spending money on themselves instead of their own defense while the US subsidized their defense and protected their existence from an expansionist totalitarian state.  Again, many Americans feel like Europe doesn't care about that and looks down their nose at the US, with the possible exception of the UK.  Right or wrong, many Americans feel aggrieved and believe that we have been taken advantage of, Trump expresses those feeling in a way they appreciate.  Lastly, the thinking is who exactly will Europe turn to if the decide to bail on the US?  Russia?  Not with a GDP less than Italy.  China?  The UK has already started down this road in some ways, I don't think this would end well for anyone involved but China and I think most European leaders know this.

Yeah, just because many Americans believe that's irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant. As for Europe, we do not necessarily need a stronger partner, we just grew accustomed to that. But we can live on this world on our own and don't necessarily need to turn to someone to survive. As you said, Russia has the GDP of Italy, while Europe obviously has a far bigger GOP than Italy. If any, they could turn to us, not the other way round. That much self-confidence is justified. We are not that small and unimportant, and worsened relationships to Europe can't be a good thing for the US. If it's a bad thing and how bad, that can be argued and I don't know. I do feel that the US is on its path to become a country without friends. And that just doesn't sound too good.

There are growing voices demanding we Europeans take our defense in our own hands, me being one of those voices. It's one of the few things where Trump has a point. Be that as it may, actually claiming the world celebrated the Paris accord for we all screwed the US with that agreement is just agitating lesser informed people, a treat often displayed by Trump and in general one of the main reason I want people to turn away from him. It's a dangerous path. (Not this one example specifically, but in a more general sense, Trump is an agitator, not an appeaser, and people usually react badly to that.)

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, there's an election in three years.  The system has worked rather well for longer than most countries have been in existence under their current style of governance.  I suppose I have more faith in the system than the perpetually outraged.

It worked rather well except for the times it didn't and the US went through a civil war.... there's no actual point to that remark, I just like to use that to further trigger people :)

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you can't discard certain elements of a movement and then say look at the pure product left.  To even begin to try would require utter condemnation of these elements from the people above them.  This hasn't even remotely happened and, in reality, the rhetoric is getting worse.  One need look no further than the recent Victory for Latinos PAC add in Virginia and the utter lack of Democratic response to it.

I can't quite follow here, I'm quite sure that's on me though. The way I understand it, I can very well discard certain elements I do not identify with. I do agree, US or my country, the tendency of silencing voices one considers unpleasant is an awful trend, and I too very much dislike the lack of clear words from "leftist" leadership on that. But I never intended to strike a blow for Democrats or liberals or anyone else happening to agree with me on Trump. It's still not about Dems, and that's still not the movement I try to support with my words.

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Waters is only the tip of the iceberg.  I use her as an example for the precise reasons you discount her, she is well known.  

I know her. I don't particularly like her.
I just went to the mirror and checked, and it's undeniably true, I am still not Maxine Waters. And I still have no intention to say anything nice about her to further my distinct anti-Trump stance. She's only on my side by default on this one, apart from that I have nothing to do with her or her party or the American left in general. I repeat myself in saying that it's not about Dems and that I feel it shouldn't be about them. That the Democratic party is the only viable alternative to Trump is unfortunate, but that's not my fault. Doesn't make me their allies or put me in a position to defend things they do and say.
 

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When he actually does something worthy of impeachment.

I don't advocate impeachment, I advocate a stronger disapproval from conservative leaning people. To be more precise, I wanted to find out why there isn't stronger disapproval. Doesn't mean impeachment. Almost every European leader would have gotten impeached after the Ivanka Nordstrom tweet though, but the US is not Europe and I know that, so there's probably no legit reason for impeachment... maybe the whole Comey firing thing, but I guess not, so. Not my point.

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree Trump has extreme views.  The second point bugs the shit out of me.  Any POTUS who wanted to enforce immigration law would be beloved by the extreme right, that doesn't make the POTUS in question an extreme right POTUS.  Just because you have a policy that aligns with an extreme group doesn't make you extreme.  The policy is extreme and unacceptable or it isn't.  Who likes it doesn't mean a damn thing to me.

You have a point there. I reduce my statement to "Trump has extreme views" and scratch the whole "the extreme right loves him" part, because your point is well taken.

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't expect consistency from Trump, you may recall I labeled him as mercurial some time ago.  I'm talking about consistency on a broad level and, yes, both sides are equally guilty of this sin. 

mercurial... ok, I think that's sugercoating it, but discussing shades of grey doesn't make much sense. Sure both sides are guilty of it, the degree could be argued, but I won't.

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any freedom is going to be abused by a certain percentage of the citizenry.  The freedom to own a firearm has existed since the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  If you have access to firearms some people will use them unlawfully.  The US does not feel that that percentage should cause the removal of that right from the 99.99% of citizens who do not abuse it.  Also, our national culture is wildly different than Germany.

I get that. I shared my perspective, I understand people have a different perspective and I'm not the one who is entitled to question that perspective. But when you say "the US feels", I guess you're taking it a bit too far. Many in the US do not quite agree, it is an ongoing debate after all.

(11-03-2017, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You could start very simply, by increasing sentences on people who use a gun in the commission of a crime.  Instead we are moving in the opposite direction, letting more and more criminal free and reducing sentences.  As a result the crime rate has risen for the first time in twenty-five years and this current year will see another increase.  I speak about this with officers from other agencies every day.  We have both hands tied behind our back now to the point that I have literally heard criminals say, "you guys can't do shit to us anymore".  I'm sure the left leaning state government will find a way to blame guns for the crime increase rather than the utter failure of the current soft on crime policies they have enacted.  We all know it's going to get worse before it gets better and forearm ownership has nothing to do with it.

I read that, I can't add to that, I lack specific knowledge. I do agree that going after guns isn't the solution for all problems, maybe it's not helpful at all. In principle, I tend to doubt that higher sentences prevent crimes, criminals usually don't think about the consequences of getting caught too much. I further do think that the underlying problems are way more systemic, connected to many other topics like powerty, hopelessness, lack of reintegration processes and many many more things. In that sense, to me saying higher sentences are the obvious solution is just as valid or non-valid as saying gun control is the obvious solution. Both things are too short-sighted standing on their own, imho.

I do have an opinion on the more extreme instances of gun laws though. Why the second amendment should give people the right to purchase devices that allow a gun to become fully automatic (I know I sound ignorant, I have no idea about guns) so that a more or less infinite amounts of bullets can be fired is beyond me.

[Dill]

(11-03-2017, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I deleted your sucking up to hollo to address this point.  Are you saying Trump should be impeached?  If so, why don't you just say Trump should be impeached instead of tap dancing around it?

I have said many times that I think he should be removed from office. And why I think so.  The number of Americans who agree is steadily growing. It doesn't have to be via impeachment The 25th Amendment is one route. The critical mass required for that seems to be developing now.

My views on this are not secret. There was a prediction thread on this subject some months back. I believe I said he would not last two years.

Don't know why I needed to mention that in a post 1) offering kudos to Hollo for a masterful job of summing up Trump, and 2) extending that to a topic I think discussion worthy given that summation--namely the dysfunction that keeps Trump power.

The documentation phase is over. Now people ought to be discussing why the documentation doesn't matter to so many.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-03-2017, 02:03 PM)Dill Wrote: I have said many times that I think he should be removed from office.  And why I think so.  The number of Americans who agree is steadily growing. It doesn't have to be via impeachment The 25th Amendment is one route. The critical mass required for that seems to be developing now.

My views on this are not secret. There was a prediction thread on this subject some months back. I believe I said he would not last two years.

Don't know why I needed to mention that in a post 1) offering kudos to Hollo for a masterful job of summing up Trump, and 2) extending that to a topic I think discussion worthy given that summation--namely the dysfunction that keeps Trump power.

The documentation phase is over.  Now people ought to be discussing why the documentation doesn't matter to so many.

The 25th amendment?  Unable is a key word.  And what critical mass?  The American Public certainly has no say.  Then even if you manage to get the VP and cabinet to say he's unable he gets to say he's fine.  Then 2/3s of congress have to vote for it.  

[Dill]

(11-03-2017, 03:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The 25th amendment?  Unable is a key word.  And what critical mass?  The American Public certainly has no say.  Then even if you manage to get the VP and cabinet to say he's unable he gets to say he's fine.  Then 2/3s of congress have to vote for it.  

I understand all that. That is why I am referring to critical mass.

But this is only one option in play.  There is still the Russia investigation, and Trump's increasingly erratic behavior. The former could unearth questionable or illegal financial dealings, and the latter could eventually alienate enough members of his own party and pose so clear a national risk that they are finally ready to move on impeachment or to support a 8 cabinet members invoking the 25th.

[Dill]

(11-03-2017, 02:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm focusing on his personality in the paragraph I dedicated to that very aspect, but I tried not to talk exclusively about what bad character treats he displays. I feel it's still an important aspect.

Yeah, just because many Americans believe that's irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant. As for Europe, we do not necessarily need a stronger partner, we just grew accustomed to that. But we can live on this world on our own and don't necessarily need to turn to someone to survive. As you said, Russia has the GDP of Italy, while Europe obviously has a far bigger GOP than Italy.

Two quick points.

1. Trump's personality is certainly an issue, given the tremendous power of his position. The inability to prioritize battles and the susceptibility to conspiracy theories, the intolerance of dissenting advisors and the like, create risks--especially during crises.  Were I directing a foreign intel service, I would assume that Trump is more subject to manipulation than most world leaders. Just knowing that he always "has to hit back 10 times harder" is a crucial piece of information.  That personality drives him away from disciplined learning about policy issues and towards momentary, uninformed, situational responses to problems as they arise. In what other sphere of activity does an institution go undamaged from that sort of leadership?

That's why I raise the question of why so many of his supporters don't think this matters much, is not likely to do lasting damage. Most could see that right away if we were talking about malfeasance on a smaller scale--like a hospital administrator or the superintendent of a school district or a base commander in the Gulf.

2. Many right wing Americans don't necessarily believe what other nations think is unimportant. They used to always want to project "strength" and constantly criticized Obama for respecting other nations and national leaders and generally exhibiting statecraft and showing restraint during crises.  
It is only now that so much of the world laughs at and distrusts Trump, that "what the world thinks" is irrelevant.

It is puzzling that so many seem to think that reducing the US's ability to influence world events and global markets will "make America Great Again."  Or perhaps they think the US can manage all that with force abroad and tax cuts for the rich at home. There is maybe a feeling of power in imagining this. Trump may be reducing foreign policy problems to simple black and white solutions people feel they can understand.  Little thought is given to whether such reduction will produce better outcomes. I still remember when the US had had enough of Saddam Hussein and chose invasion over containment because diplomacy had "failed."

[BmorePat87]

Have mass shootings finally left us completely unfazed?

Ted Cruz is calling for us to not talk about gun control or politics right now while saying that "people will use the weapons available".

In his attempt to defend gun ownership, he has made the argument against it. Americans use what is available. Some fat loser can easily gun down children and the elderly in church, despite being a habitual domestic abuser because the system failed and his criminal past went unreported for years as he bought multiple weapons.

Apparently the fact that we have more mass shootings than other developed nations is a "mental health issue". Meanwhile, let's ban the muslims.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2017, 12:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Have mass shootings finally left us completely unfazed?

Ted Cruz is calling for us to not talk about gun control or politics right now while saying that "people will use the weapons available".

In his attempt to defend gun ownership, he has made the argument against it. Americans use what is available. Some fat loser can easily gun down children and the elderly in church, despite being a habitual domestic abuser because the system failed and his criminal past went unreported for years as he bought multiple weapons.

Apparently the fact that we have more mass shootings than other developed nations is a "mental health issue". Meanwhile, let's ban the muslims.

I realize this is a sensitive issue, but I'll ask this.  What constitutionaly passable gun control law(s), "common sense" or otherwise, do you, or anyone else, propose that would prevent mass shootings?

[J24]

(11-07-2017, 12:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Have mass shootings finally left us completely unfazed?

Ted Cruz is calling for us to not talk about gun control or politics right now while saying that "people will use the weapons available".

In his attempt to defend gun ownership, he has made the argument against it. Americans use what is available. Some fat loser can easily gun down children and the elderly in church, despite being a habitual domestic abuser because the system failed and his criminal past went unreported for years as he bought multiple weapons.

Apparently the fact that we have more mass shootings than other developed nations is a "mental health issue". Meanwhile, let's ban the muslims.

1.)  Mass shootings are overblown the only reason why we think there are so many is because when it happens its on a 24 news Network and social Media.
2.) When has banning anything ever work in this country? Do you really want the cartels and mob have to control over another industry in this country?
3.) The majority of American gun owners are good obeying citizens do we really want to add a law that could possibly could punish them unnecessary just like drug users?
4.) Why don't we actually encourage business, schools, Churches, and other soft targets better security practices instead of try to control the uncontrollable.

[BmorePat87]

(11-07-2017, 12:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realize this is a sensitive issue, but I'll ask this.  What constitutionaly passable gun control law(s), "common sense" or otherwise, do you, or anyone else, propose that would prevent mass shootings?

None. It's the reality of the 2nd Amendment. Guns will, for the foreseeable future, be in abundance and readily available for any psychopath who wants to murder dozens of people in a short period of time, and people will happily jump on board and defend that neckbeard's need to overcompensate for his buried micropenis. 

Doesn't mean I can't ***** about it and the lives lost. Repeal the ban on funding for gun violence research and, in this case, be reactionary and take steps to prevent the ****** up that occurred in this guy's case that allowed  a repeat criminal the ability to buy guns. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-07-2017, 01:11 AM)Jakeypoo Wrote: 1.)  Mass shootings are overblown the only reason why we think there are so many is because when it happens its on a 24 news Network and social Media.
2.) When has banning anything ever work in this country? Do you really want the cartels and mob have to control over another industry in this country?
3.) The majority of American gun owners are good obeying citizens do we really want to add a law that could possibly could punish them unnecessary just like drug users?
4.) Why don't we actually encourage business, schools, Churches, and other soft targets better security practices instead of try to control the uncontrollable.

They're not overblown, but you can make the argument that the media coverage encourages others to bring their sick thoughts into fruition for a number of reasons. I don't know if I'd compare stricter gun control to prohibiting recreational drugs. I don't know if someone being bummed out because they can't own a weapon used to kill people is enough to sway me to not question why this doesn't happen in other developed nations. The last point is just asinine. Churches shouldn't have to hire armed guards because because we're unwilling as a nation to prevent people with violent pasts from owning weapons capable of ending the lives of multiple people in a matter of seconds. We shouldn't have to become a nation scared of our neighbor's  right to own guns. At that point, the social contract is flawed.

[Dill]

(11-07-2017, 01:20 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: None. It's the reality of the 2nd Amendment. Guns will, for the foreseeable future, be in abundance and readily available for any psychopath who wants to murder dozens of people in a short period of time, and people will happily jump on board and defend that neckbeard's need to overcompensate for his buried micropenis. 

Doesn't mean I can't ***** about it and the lives lost. Repeal the ban on funding for gun violence research and, in this case, be reactionary and take steps to prevent the ***** up that occurred in this guy's case that allowed  a repeat criminal the ability to buy guns. 

Mightn't a ban on semi automatic weapons and/or a limit on magazine size, coupled with a restoration of the stricter, Obama era back ground checks reduce some of the carnage?  

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(11-07-2017, 12:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realize this is a sensitive issue, but I'll ask this.  What constitutionaly passable gun control law(s), "common sense" or otherwise, do you, or anyone else, propose that would prevent mass shootings?

SSF, I hope you know that I certainly respect your opinion on a number of issues.  I'm curious as to what you think is a solution to these atrocious crimes?  Seriously something has to give.  I don't stand by the old "nothing can be done because of the 2nd amendment."

Are we just supposed to live with this?  Is there nothing that can be done?

Because you are a member of the LOE community, I'm interested in what you think could curb the problem.  IMO we can't just accept that this is life now.

[Dill]

(11-07-2017, 01:11 AM)Jakeypoo Wrote: 1.)  Mass shootings are overblown the only reason why we think there are so many is because when it happens its on a 24 news Network and social Media.

These graphs only go to 2015, and don't include the recent record breakers.