Terror in NYC

[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.