|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 5, 2017 1:20:51 GMT -5
Trump : 30,000 dead each year because of your gun laws... so what's your point? Trump is a disgrace. Congrats to the brave London policemen who stopped the rampage in under eight minutes, and to all the English citizens who refuse to be cowed by terrorists or to be coaxed into xenophobia by demagogues. The man is an idiot. He really needs to learn when to stop talking.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 5, 2017 5:11:41 GMT -5
Trump : 30,000 dead each year because of your gun laws... so what's your point? Trump is a disgrace. Congrats to the brave London policemen who stopped the rampage in under eight minutes, and to all the English citizens who refuse to be cowed by terrorists or to be coaxed into xenophobia by demagogues. My heart goes out to the UK which has absorbed 3 terror attacks within the last 100 days and broke up 5 other credible attempts as well. Stand fast, stand strong and don't back down As for that 30,000 gun death number-you are including roughly 20,000 that were suicides. As far as the remainder, the majority are gun deaths which the killer and victim knew each other. Death by Terror Attack: random, in a crowded public place, against total innocents, is an act of war and a completely different crime Naturally, I completely disagree, Ish. Not only because death by suicide is a tragedy made easier by the availability of guns, but mostly because a terror attack in a crowded place is also made easier by such availability. There are so many school shootings in the United States that the rest of the world can't keep count, and that's squarely on the shoulders of a system that makes it so easy to get one's hands on death-dealing machines. Trump was way out of line when lambasting the Mayor of London for telling his people not to be alarmed, and was even more out of line in a later tweet in which he mentioned that all of a sudden nobody was talking about the gun problem anymore. What is he talking about??? Even forgetting that it's very bad form to try to make political capital on the back of a tragedy, it's clear that the death toll would have been far worse if those losers had used the same kind of arsenal as in Sandy Hook. The president's first tweet after the attack went like "we are with you". He should have left it at that and gone to bed. It would at least have given the impression that he can act in a proper manner once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Jun 5, 2017 5:22:20 GMT -5
Trump : 30,000 dead each year because of your gun laws... so what's your point? Trump is a disgrace. Congrats to the brave London policemen who stopped the rampage in under eight minutes, and to all the English citizens who refuse to be cowed by terrorists or to be coaxed into xenophobia by demagogues. The man is an idiot. He really needs to learn when to stop talking. That point is usually* before he starts. * always
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 5, 2017 5:23:44 GMT -5
My heart goes out to the UK which has absorbed 3 terror attacks within the last 100 days and broke up 5 other credible attempts as well. Stand fast, stand strong and don't back down As for that 30,000 gun death number-you are including roughly 20,000 that were suicides. As far as the remainder, the majority are gun deaths which the killer and victim knew each other. Death by Terror Attack: random, in a crowded public place, against total innocents, is an act of war and a completely different crime Naturally, I completely disagree, Ish. Not only because death by suicide is a tragedy made easier by the availability of guns, but mostly because a terror attack in a crowded place is also made easier by such availability. There are so many school shootings in the United States that the rest of the world can't keep count, and that's squarely on the shoulders of a system that makes it so easy to get one's hands on death-dealing machines. Trump was way out of line when lambasting the Mayor of London for telling his people not to be alarmed, and was even more out of line in a later tweet in which he mentioned that all of a sudden nobody was talking about the gun problem anymore. What is he talking about??? Even forgetting that it's very bad form to try to make political capital on the back of a tragedy, it's clear that the death toll would have been far worse if those losers had used the same kind of arsenal as in Sandy Hook. The president's first tweet after the attack went like "we are with you". He should have left it at that and gone to bed. It would at least have given the impression that he can act in a proper manner once in a while. Well, we will have to be on opposite sides regarding tying together these terror attacks with US gun control laws. I see no reason where one has to do with the other. From the London Bridge incident, to the Manchester Festival, to the Boston Marathon bombing, to 9/11, to the numerous terror attacks in Egypt,The Middle East and Asia-where is US Gun Control part of the equation. It's a totally separate argument, many points I'll probably agree with you. But these ISIS attacks would have taken place no matter what gun laws prevailed in the States
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 5, 2017 9:06:48 GMT -5
Naturally, I completely disagree, Ish. Not only because death by suicide is a tragedy made easier by the availability of guns, but mostly because a terror attack in a crowded place is also made easier by such availability. There are so many school shootings in the United States that the rest of the world can't keep count, and that's squarely on the shoulders of a system that makes it so easy to get one's hands on death-dealing machines. Trump was way out of line when lambasting the Mayor of London for telling his people not to be alarmed, and was even more out of line in a later tweet in which he mentioned that all of a sudden nobody was talking about the gun problem anymore. What is he talking about??? Even forgetting that it's very bad form to try to make political capital on the back of a tragedy, it's clear that the death toll would have been far worse if those losers had used the same kind of arsenal as in Sandy Hook. The president's first tweet after the attack went like "we are with you". He should have left it at that and gone to bed. It would at least have given the impression that he can act in a proper manner once in a while. Well, we will have to be on opposite sides regarding tying together these terror attacks with US gun control laws. I see no reason where one has to do with the other. From the London Bridge incident, to the Manchester Festival, to the Boston Marathon bombing, to 9/11, to the numerous terror attacks in Egypt,The Middle East and Asia-where is US Gun Control part of the equation. It's a totally separate argument, many points I'll probably agree with you. But these ISIS attacks would have taken place no matter what gun laws prevailed in the States Oh, I agree absolutely! Terrorists will find a way, no matter what, and their motivation is definitely a more important aspect of the equation than the tools at their disposal. I wasn't the one to first mention gun control in the wake of the latest attack : Donald Trump himself was, in what can only be seen as a very disingenuous tweet (or a logically flawed one). No, Mr. Trump, we're not talking about gun control right now, you're right... it is not germane to the issue at hand. We'll talk about gun control the next time someone goes on a rampage in a school with a weapon he should never have had access to. Right now London has been attacked by crazies, and the thing to do is say "we're by your side, Mr. Khan", not scoring political points with the NRA on the back of Londoners.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 5, 2017 13:45:47 GMT -5
Well, we will have to be on opposite sides regarding tying together these terror attacks with US gun control laws. I see no reason where one has to do with the other. From the London Bridge incident, to the Manchester Festival, to the Boston Marathon bombing, to 9/11, to the numerous terror attacks in Egypt,The Middle East and Asia-where is US Gun Control part of the equation. It's a totally separate argument, many points I'll probably agree with you. But these ISIS attacks would have taken place no matter what gun laws prevailed in the States Oh, I agree absolutely! Terrorists will find a way, no matter what, and their motivation is definitely a more important aspect of the equation than the tools at their disposal. I wasn't the one to first mention gun control in the wake of the latest attack : Donald Trump himself was, in what can only be seen as a very disingenuous tweet (or a logically flawed one). No, Mr. Trump, we're not talking about gun control right now, you're right... it is not germane to the issue at hand. We'll talk about gun control the next time someone goes on a rampage in a school with a weapon he should never have had access to. Right now London has been attacked by crazies, and the thing to do is say "we're by your side, Mr. Khan", not scoring political points with the NRA on the back of Londoners. The moron has now done it again, BBC News reporting that "Trump renews attack on Mayor of London", apparently he has some real problem with the fact that Khan is actually daring to try and reassure people!!! What does this orange imbecile want, for us all to be in a permanent state of panic? What the hell does it have to do with him, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 6, 2017 10:43:05 GMT -5
Okay, this tweet is for Trump's base, right? A publicity stunt? The main sin of Qatar is that it does not endorse all of Saudi Arabia's agenda and that it is on better terms with Iran than its neighbour, who views Tehran as a competitor for dominance in the region. Trying to pass Qatar as the source of islamic terrorism is as simple-minded as claiming there is an islamic mastermind living somewhere under a volcano, surrounded by henchmen dressed in orange coveralls, waiting for James Bond to destroy their secret base. Come on. The world is more complex than that, Donald, and yes, most people (except you) realize that. "Terrorist" groups are numerous and do not fit a nice, single little niche in our world. They can be what Wolverine called them in Secret Wars: "what the big army calls the little army". They can be genuine freedom fighters who do not wear a uniform, like the French Resistance during WWII. They can be people who blow up civilians to inspire terror, either for ideological, political or even financial gain. They can strike targets randomly (ISIS strikes at anything that does not correspond to its views) or very specifically (Hamas and the Hezbollah are mostly about destroying Israel). They can be called terrorists because they try to spread terror, or because some government doesn't like them (hello, Mr. Putin). Slapping the word "terrorist" on a group doesn't tell us much out of context, and here it seems like Trump is conflating ISIS, Al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah. Qatar isn't shy about backing Hamas. Well so what? The U.S. isn't shy about backing Israel. There's an ongoing regional conflict in the Middle east and different countries back different horses according to their own priorities; that's the ugliness of politics. As far as I know (and I honestly don't), Qatar could very well declare Israel a terrorist country and then accuse the U.S. of backing terrorists. The main cause of religion-based terrorism, nowadays, the kind that makes people blow themselves up in marketplace while shouting "god is great", is arguably an ultraconservative view of Islam exemplified by Salafism and Wahhabism. Such ultraconservative movements easily lend themselves to the promotion of violence, just like European ultranationalism does. It's not a direct equation, but it's a philosophical slippery slope. Any ideology that deals with absolutism is one step ahead of justifying violence. Who's the main backer of Wahhabism? Well, guess what... It's not Qatar. Sure, Qatar is very conservative... but it plays second fiddle to Saudi Arabia when it comes to backing extremist views. It's ridiculous to blame the one and exonerate the other. Trump is acting as if he was the Kingdom's puppet. He's not fighting terrorism; he's just siding with the kettle to call the pot black. I guess the Saudis are more useful allies than tiny Qatar, and principles be damned. And as this is going on, Raif Badawi is still in jail in Saudi Arabia, guilty of that most anti-American sin : speaking his mind.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 6, 2017 15:33:37 GMT -5
Okay, this tweet is for Trump's base, right? Two things, RR. One, you spent more time thinking about, researching and writing your post than Trump has ever spent thinking about anything but himself, and two, how frightening is it that Trump has a base?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 6, 2017 15:55:40 GMT -5
Okay, this tweet is for Trump's base, right? Two things, RR. One, you spent more time thinking about, researching and writing your post than Trump has ever spent thinking about anything but himself, and two, how frightening is it that Trump has a base?That's what scares me the most, Prince Hal. The man himself is a clown, an ignoramus, a self-important and pompous man-child who craves approval and recognition like a desperate four year old. At most, he should be an irritant; an embarrassment. But no... he has a base. A base that numbers in several million people. I'm not talking about those who see him as some kind of necessary evil, whose unpleasant aspects are to be endured to help bring about a change in Washington's political culture, nor about those who voted for him while pinching their nose because they saw no better alternative. The base that scares me is the one that genuinely believes what he says: that crime went up and the economy down under Obama, that protectionism translates into high paying jobs for unskilled workers in obsolete industries, that global warming is a hoax or that while some Moslems might be very, very nice, overall they represent a threat. I'd love to believe they do not exist, but here they are on the web and on TV and in newspapers... talking about "fake news" and defending their indefensible president. I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say that considering the existence of such a base and that it is numerous enough to put a Donald Trump in charge, it makes a lot of sense for countries like Iran to try and get their own nuclear arsenal. It's among the last things I want to see happening, but I can see the logic. Something has changed in America; something crucial. Partisanship has replaced common goals. Make-believe stories have replaced facts. Trump's base is at the forefront of this movement. You said it right... Scary.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 6, 2017 16:11:24 GMT -5
Two things, RR. One, you spent more time thinking about, researching and writing your post than Trump has ever spent thinking about anything but himself, and two, how frightening is it that Trump has a base?That's what scares me the most, Prince Hal. The man himself is a clown, an ignoramus, a self-important and pompous man-child who craves approval and recognition like a desperate four year old. At most, he should be an irritant; an embarrassment. But no... he has a base. A base that numbers in several million people. I'm not talking about those who see him as some kind of necessary evil, whose unpleasant aspects are to be endured to help bring about a change in Washington's political culture, nor about those who voted for him while pinching their nose because they saw no better alternative. The base that scares me is the one that genuinely believes what he says: that crime went up and the economy down under Obama, that protectionism translates into high paying jobs for unskilled workers in obsolete industries, that global warming is a hoax or that while some Moslems might be very, very nice, overall they represent a threat. I'd love to believe they do not exist, but here they are on the web and on TV and in newspapers... talking about "fake news" and defending their indefensible president. I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say that considering the existence of such a base and that it is numerous enough to put a Donald Trump in charge, it makes a lot of sense for countries like Iran to try and get their own nuclear arsenal. It's among the last things I want to see happening, but I can see the logic. Something has changed in America; something crucial. Partisanship has replaced common goals. Make-believe stories have replaced facts. Trump's base is at the forefront of this movement. You said it right... Scary. Right. It's not Trump who causes me to wake up wondering what rabbit hole I've tumbled into, but the darkness he has released. (God, this sounds like a bad mid-90s Marvel comic.) I think that the past 200-odd years of progress toward democracy and away from autocracy was a blip or a plateau, and that we are dropping precipitously toward a frightening norm, thanks in large part to the quislings of the conservative movement and the republican party. Who, it must be said, have been happily escorting us this way since 1964. They are patient bastards, yes they are. As a self-professed realist/rationalist, I told myself for years that humans were not naturally noble, that we are herd creatures, eager to follow a "strong" leader, that we prefer not to do the hard work of thinking for ourselves. And yet, and yet, for a while there, it seemed there was increasing evidence to the contrary, and I relaxed a bit and thought that at least here, we'd broken free of the spell of a past divided between the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the chosen and the other, a past in which science and learning and reason were ignored and repressed. Alas, the truth doesn't just set you free, it makes you fear for the future of our species.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 8, 2017 11:44:58 GMT -5
Former Republican Chris Ladd knocks it out of the park again: politicalorphans.com/donald-trump-loves-terrorism/"An atmosphere soaked in indiscriminate violence is fantastic for authoritarians. [...] Donald Trump fosters terrorism because it furthers his political goals." "Trump is the world’s foremost promoter of Islamist terrorism." "Trump shares more strategic goals with ISIS than he does with the Mayor of London."
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 8, 2017 13:17:02 GMT -5
"Trump shares more strategic goals with ISIS than he does with the Mayor of London." I can believe that. He wants us to be afraid. And having heard Theresa May say that if civil rights laws need to be changed in order to combat extremism, they will, I am afraid. But not of Islamic terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 8, 2017 13:30:40 GMT -5
Former Republican Chris Ladd knocks it out of the park again: politicalorphans.com/donald-trump-loves-terrorism/"An atmosphere soaked in indiscriminate violence is fantastic for authoritarians. [...] Donald Trump fosters terrorism because it furthers his political goals." "Trump is the world’s foremost promoter of Islamist terrorism." "Trump shares more strategic goals with ISIS than he does with the Mayor of London." Excellent, Rob. Thanks. Did you see ohn Oliver take apart the the various American broadcast news outlets for the way they covered the London Bridge attacks? The man is a treasure.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 8, 2017 15:11:49 GMT -5
"Trump lies" says Comey.
"No, YOU lie!" says the White House.
Considering the steady stream of lies that came out of the White House for so many months, I know who strikes me as the most trustworthy.
I was very angry at Comey for damaging Clinton's campaign with ill-timed revelations, but I never thought he was lying about anything.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jun 8, 2017 16:54:43 GMT -5
"Trump lies" says Comey. "No, YOU lie!" says the White House. Considering the steady stream of lies that came out of the White House for so many months, I know who strikes me as the most trustworthy. I was very angry at Comey for damaging Clinton's campaign with ill-timed revelations, but I never thought he was lying about anything. I was, too, but I think he has been soundly vindicated in hindsight. Dude is a stone-cold m****r-f****n' professional.
|
|