|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 4, 2016 13:52:00 GMT -5
Applying this equilivancy: Kim Jong Un is a much more despicable political leader and yet he's never mentioned in this thread. Donald Trump must drool over his deeds. Maybe what Trump says is sad and gets alot of headlines doesn't mean it's a big problem If I get your meaning right (which I might not), I agree : Kim Jong Un is not a major security issue for the US, and what Trump does say is a major security issue (mainly Iran getting nukes, say) isn't either. There are security issues in the US, as everywhere else, but they're not the point Trump stresses: all he keeps yapping about are issues that get him enthusiastic ovations but that are this close to being downright trivial. His solutions to these "problems" also involve, all too often, discriminating against people who are the wrong colour, speak the wrong language or practice the wrong religion. He's a populist, nothing more. He has no plan about anything. He just wants to get in the white house, shout "you're fired" at whoever displeases him, and believes that the strength of his obnoxious personality will be enough to get the world to fall in line. No, I don't think you understood my point which concerned the mind-game of relegating something bad (terrorism) into the"no-big-deal" zone because cancer kills more people. Or, as you posited, changing the subject to the 2nd amendment. I don't understand this method of debate, that we have to be single-minded over our focus of concerns. Another example for you: Was it incorrect to spend so much money and effort fighting AIDs and Breast Cancer since there are other diseases that kill more people? Plus I think your totally wrong concerning Korea not being a major security issue. A country with nuclear capacity, publicly trying to develop delivery systems to reach the American West Coast, threatening Armageddon continuously ...What more do they need to do for you to be somewhat concerned?
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 4, 2016 13:58:28 GMT -5
You're right. I was wrong about the violent crime numbers. They have however declined consistently since 1992 until there was an uptick in 2015. And maybe you are more sensitive. But the point is, that building a boon-doggle of a wall isn't going to do jack-shit to stop terrorism, because there is zero instances of terrorism coming about because of illegal immigration. The main result of 9/11 is that most Americans act like terrified children jumping at shadows and willingly giving up American rights and freedoms, instead of being the land of the free and the home of the brave. All of which leads to a fascist being the nominee of the Republican Party for President. Best.. post.. ever. Liking just wasn't enough. Well said, Slam.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 4, 2016 14:04:58 GMT -5
What about the terrorists? The fact is the every all the recent terrorist attacks committed by Radical Muslims were people born in the United States. It's also a fact that Terrorism as a source of death is a very very minor item in the scheme of things. How about Cancer? Alzheimers? DUI? Just because something is sad and gets alot of headlines doesn't mean it's a big problem. Don't forget the second amendment, responsible for fifteen thousand violent deaths every year, plus a comparable number of suicides and accidental deaths. ISIS must drool when thinking of such numbers. That's very arguable.. just because guns caused 15,000 deaths, doesn't mean if there were no guns, those deaths wouldn't happen. there are plenty of other ways to kill yourself or others. My point was I'd rather see my tax dollars fund medical research or something equally useful than to fight a straw man because Donald Trump is good at marketing to the lowest common demon-inator. Here's the thing about the 2nd amendment. It promises the right to bear arms... for the militia. The actual text: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Last I checked, there were very few state militias drilling around these parts... this, as worded, became obsolete as soon as we decided to maintain a professional standing army. That said, I have no problem with the modernized interpretation, as long as we have reasonable safegards. People need a license to drive a car. They take a test to be allowed to drive on public roads. There are rules about what the car can and cannot do, and how one operates it. Is it so terrible to have the same stuff for guns, which are (arguably) easier to kill people with?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 4, 2016 14:07:41 GMT -5
Don't forget the second amendment, responsible for fifteen thousand violent deaths every year, plus a comparable number of suicides and accidental deaths. ISIS must drool when thinking of such numbers. Yeah, no. I'm not a gun guy (never fired one, never held one, have no interest in owning one), so I'm not here rah-rahing the NRA and the Second Amendment, but this isn't even close to being right. Most of those violent deaths you reference are not the result of the actions of law-abiding citizens who legally own their guns, whose right to own them legally is guaranteed by that amendment, but rather by individuals whose guns are acquired through theft or purchased through illegal means on the blavk market. Getting rid of the Second Amendment will do nothing to stem the tide of criminal acquisitions of firearms and the deaths caused by those who don't follow the laws of the land anyway, so to attribute all or even the majority of those violent deaths to the existence of that amendment is disingenuous. I wasn't trying to shift the discussion toward a pro-gun or anti-gun one, Captain, but I am not wrong: the United States, mostly thanks to the second amendment, has a staggering amount of firearms going around. Some of these guns end up in criminal hands, some in the hands of disgruntled workers, some in the hands of violent spouses, some in the hands of lunatics, some in the hands of individuals with mental health issues, some in the hands of kids, some in the hands of angry drivers, and so on. That most of them end up in the hands of peaceful, law-abiding citizens explains why there aren't millions of gun-related deaths each year instead of tens of thousands (and it is a credit to the population in general), but it is the ready availability of all kinds of firearms -including ones meant for war- that makes tragedies so easy. Canada has a culture that is very, very similar to that of the US but it has ten times fewer gun-related deaths. Believe me, it's not because Canadians are nicer or more sedate than their southern neighbours. It's just that assault weapons are banned there, handguns are very strictly regulated, and hunting rifles (while numerous) make for lousy mass slaughter instruments. Our would-be criminals do get their hands on smuggled guns, sure, but they can only do so illegally; if they're caught carrying, they cant flash their permit -just owning the gun is a crime. And since there are so few of them (guns, that is, not criminals), they also tend not to be armed as often as their southern counterparts... the petty ones go for knives. The equation seems simple to me : more guns, more opportunities to misuse them. Now once again, I don't mean to derail the thread; however, I find it silly for politicians to go on and on about what a threat ISIS is when its death toll in the US is smaller than that caused by accidental shootings by cops, or by toddlers who got their hands on a loaded handgun. Photogenic villains that they are, the crazed Jihadis are nowhere near as dangerous as that home-grown problem. (There's a nice graph about it here). I understand how invoking Islamic terrorism is a low-hanging fruit, politically speaking, and a point on which people can universally rally: terrorism is bad. But then so are many things that cause far more misery, things that can be fought without resorting to tactics like banning moslems from entering the US. I do not expect any politician to challenge the second amendment (it would be political suicide and is probably a moot point by now, with three hundred millions guns in the US) but if they were really serious about security issues, they'd focus on things that are actually a problem and not what is convenient and makes a good sound bite. (Heh! I feel this should go in the "there! I said it!" thread!)
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 4, 2016 14:26:52 GMT -5
If I get your meaning right (which I might not), I agree : Kim Jong Un is not a major security issue for the US, and what Trump does say is a major security issue (mainly Iran getting nukes, say) isn't either. There are security issues in the US, as everywhere else, but they're not the point Trump stresses: all he keeps yapping about are issues that get him enthusiastic ovations but that are this close to being downright trivial. His solutions to these "problems" also involve, all too often, discriminating against people who are the wrong colour, speak the wrong language or practice the wrong religion. He's a populist, nothing more. He has no plan about anything. He just wants to get in the white house, shout "you're fired" at whoever displeases him, and believes that the strength of his obnoxious personality will be enough to get the world to fall in line. No, I don't think you understood my point which concerned the mind-game of relegating something bad (terrorism) into the"no-big-deal" zone because cancer kills more people. Or, as you posited, changing the subject to the 2nd amendment. I don't understand this method of debate, that we have to be single-minded over our focus of concerns. Another example for you: Was it incorrect to spend so much money and effort fighting AIDs and Breast Cancer since there are other diseases that kill more people? Plus I think your totally wrong concerning Korea not being a major security issue. A country with nuclear capacity, publicly trying to develop delivery systems to reach the American West Coast, threatening Armageddon continuously ...What more do they need to do for you to be somewhat concerned? They need to have the wherewithal to cause actual trouble and not just throw a lot of hot air around. North Korea is like a little dog trying to convince the world it is a powerful predator. It is not. If it goes mad, it might bite someone painfully, but then it will be put down. The country, even if China allowed it to do anything that might destabilize the region (which it won't), has a handful of low grade nukes. The US have 4000+ warheads. North Korea is not a major threat, simply because it is incredibly vulnerable; its only trump card is that it could cause damage to South Korea and Japan as it commits suicide... but that's unlikely to ever happen. As for the so-called "mind-game" comparing two bad things, I think it is very germane to the issue. When a politician gets in front of a crowd, yells about supposed "evils" and explains how he's going to fix them with measures that are both impractical and incredibly unfair, it would be the least of things if what he described was actually a big problem. Your mentioning AIDS and breast cancer is appropriate: they, and every other problem of that nature, should definitely get an attention proportionate to the threat they pose (which is great). I would not turn my back on the problem of strep throat to treat AIDS, nor would I abandon research on arthritis to focus on breast cancer, but I fully agree that AIDS and breast cancer should get more attention (and funding) than either strep throat or arthritis, as they are affecting more people, and more seriously. All problems need to be addressed, but there are priorities. Disguising relatively unimportant problems as priorities is just what I don't like to see politicians doing.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 4, 2016 14:54:10 GMT -5
Now once again, I don't mean to derail the thread; however, I find it silly for politicians to go on and on about what a threat ISIS is when its death toll in the US is smaller than that caused by accidental shootings by cops, or by toddlers who got their hands on a loaded handgun. Photogenic villains that they are, the crazed Jihadis are nowhere near as dangerous as that home-grown problem. (There's a nice graph about it here). I understand how invoking Islamic terrorism is a low-hanging fruit, politically speaking, and a point on which people can universally rally: terrorism is bad. But then so are many things that cause far more misery, things that can be fought without resorting to tactics like banning moslems from entering the US. I do not expect any politician to challenge the second amendment (it would be political suicide and is probably a moot point by now, with three hundred millions guns in the US) but if they were really serious about security issues, they'd focus on things that are actually a problem and not what is convenient and makes a good sound bite. (Heh! I feel this should go in the "there! I said it!" thread!) Pretty much read and heard this train of thought before from the isolationists within the U.S. before Pearl Harbor But I agree, an outright banning of Moslem immigration is a low IQ solution.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 4, 2016 15:06:48 GMT -5
Now once again, I don't mean to derail the thread; however, I find it silly for politicians to go on and on about what a threat ISIS is when its death toll in the US is smaller than that caused by accidental shootings by cops, or by toddlers who got their hands on a loaded handgun. Photogenic villains that they are, the crazed Jihadis are nowhere near as dangerous as that home-grown problem. (There's a nice graph about it here). I understand how invoking Islamic terrorism is a low-hanging fruit, politically speaking, and a point on which people can universally rally: terrorism is bad. But then so are many things that cause far more misery, things that can be fought without resorting to tactics like banning moslems from entering the US. I do not expect any politician to challenge the second amendment (it would be political suicide and is probably a moot point by now, with three hundred millions guns in the US) but if they were really serious about security issues, they'd focus on things that are actually a problem and not what is convenient and makes a good sound bite. (Heh! I feel this should go in the "there! I said it!" thread!) Pretty much read and heard this train of thought before from the isolationists within the U.S. before Pearl Harbor But I agree, an outright banning of Moslem immigration is a low IQ solution. Cool. Contrary to isolationists, however, I'm all for the US maintaining strong alliances like NATO and maintaining a credible capacity to wage two wars at once anywhere on the planet. Si vis pacem para bellum and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 15:09:22 GMT -5
Just saw an email with the subject line "Very simply: How we turn the Senate blue."
The most obvious way is to cut off its oxygen, but I'm betting the message has something to do with organizing & voting & all that dull stuff. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 4, 2016 15:40:52 GMT -5
Just saw an email with the subject line "Very simply: How we turn the Senate blue." The most obvious way is to cut off its oxygen, but I'm betting the message has something to do with organizing & voting & all that dull stuff. *sigh* Amusingly enough, Canadian Primer minister Justin Trudeau did turn our senate blue by making all the Liberal senators sit as independents from now on. He doesn't want senators to be beholden to specific political parties. That leaves only Conservative senators. (Yes, I know it's confusing... our Liberals are red and our conservatives are blue. Must be the metric system).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 16:01:04 GMT -5
Just saw an email with the subject line "Very simply: How we turn the Senate blue." The most obvious way is to cut off its oxygen, but I'm betting the message has something to do with organizing & voting & all that dull stuff. *sigh* Amusingly enough, Canadian Primer minister Justin Trudeau did turn our senate blue by making all the Liberal senators sit as independents from now on. He doesn't want senators to be beholden to specific political parties. That leaves only Conservative senators. (Yes, I know it's confusing... our Liberals are red and our conservatives are blue. Must be the metric system).Which is the way it should be, dammit, what with red being the traditional color of the political left.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 5, 2016 2:48:10 GMT -5
Just saw an email with the subject line "Very simply: How we turn the Senate blue." The most obvious way is to cut off its oxygen, but I'm betting the message has something to do with organizing & voting & all that dull stuff. *sigh* Amusingly enough, Canadian Primer minister Justin Trudeau did turn our senate blue by making all the Liberal senators sit as independents from now on. He doesn't want senators to be beholden to specific political parties. That leaves only Conservative senators. (Yes, I know it's confusing... our Liberals are red and our conservatives are blue. Must be the metric system). Why is that confusing? Ours are, too! Is it different in the US?
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 5, 2016 2:58:08 GMT -5
Don't forget the second amendment, responsible for fifteen thousand violent deaths every year, plus a comparable number of suicides and accidental deaths. ISIS must drool when thinking of such numbers. Yeah, no. I'm not a gun guy (never fired one, never held one, have no interest in owning one), so I'm not here rah-rahing the NRA and the Second Amendment, but this isn't even close to being right. Most of those violent deaths you reference are not the result of the actions of law-abiding citizens who legally own their guns, whose right to own them legally is guaranteed by that amendment, but rather by individuals whose guns are acquired through theft or purchased through illegal means on the blavk market. Getting rid of the Second Amendment will do nothing to stem the tide of criminal acquisitions of firearms and the deaths caused by those who don't follow the laws of the land anyway, so to attribute all or even the majority of those violent deaths to the existence of that amendment is disingenuous. It really isn't. Here in the UK, it is very difficult to legally acquire a gun. As a result of this, there are fewer guns in circulation. Which means that it is also very difficult to llegally acquire a gun. The rate of gun crime here is, unsurprisingly, considerably lower than in the US. In fact, it's been estimated that you are around 30 times less likely to be killed by a gun in the UK than in the US. Isn't that a good enough reason to review the situation?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,070
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 5, 2016 7:14:01 GMT -5
Yeah, no. I'm not a gun guy (never fired one, never held one, have no interest in owning one), so I'm not here rah-rahing the NRA and the Second Amendment, but this isn't even close to being right. Most of those violent deaths you reference are not the result of the actions of law-abiding citizens who legally own their guns, whose right to own them legally is guaranteed by that amendment, but rather by individuals whose guns are acquired through theft or purchased through illegal means on the blavk market. Getting rid of the Second Amendment will do nothing to stem the tide of criminal acquisitions of firearms and the deaths caused by those who don't follow the laws of the land anyway, so to attribute all or even the majority of those violent deaths to the existence of that amendment is disingenuous. It really isn't. Here in the UK, it is very difficult to legally acquire a gun. As a result of this, there are fewer guns in circulation. Which means that it is also very difficult to llegally acquire a gun. The rate of gun crime here is, unsurprisingly, considerably lower than in the US. In fact, it's been estimated that you are around 30 times less likely to be killed by a gun in the UK than in the US. Isn't that a good enough reason to review the situation? Totally agree with what you're saying, ting. I think the abundance of firearms in the hands of ordinary people in America is ridiculous. In practice, nobody really needs to have a gun in their home, as pretty much the entire population of the UK can attest. And as we've seen, the potential for killing ordinary Americans that they represent is hard to justify. However, there's a logistical problem with disarmament in the U.S., as far as I see it, and that is that guns are so ubiquitous and so fundamentally enshrined in what many Americans believe it is to be American, that any legislation designed at bringing U.S. gun ownership in line with the UK, for instance, would just result in driving those firearms underground. I genuinely think that most Americans would baulk at the idea of giving up their firearms, so what you'd end up with is a country awash with illegal guns in the hands of ordinary people, essentially criminalising large parts of the population. I hate to say it, but I don't see how disarmament in the U.S. could ever work.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 5, 2016 7:44:33 GMT -5
Amusingly enough, Canadian Primer minister Justin Trudeau did turn our senate blue by making all the Liberal senators sit as independents from now on. He doesn't want senators to be beholden to specific political parties. That leaves only Conservative senators. (Yes, I know it's confusing... our Liberals are red and our conservatives are blue. Must be the metric system). Why is that confusing? Ours are, too! Is it different in the US? Yes, in the US the Democrats are blue and the Republicans red. As Dan B. in the Underworld mentioned, this contrasts with the nearly universal tendency of associating the color red with socialism.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2016 9:11:39 GMT -5
I don't post here very much and my own State is strongly Democratic and usually a Democrat carry this state pretty much all my voting life; and having said that ... I'm not voting for Clinton nor Trump and leave my ballot blank for the President of the United States.
My mind is made up and don't bother changing it.
|
|