Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[BobTheCoward]

Sure, I'll agree. Those who would like to do away with gun rights tend to be Democrats.

Would you also agree that the vast majority of racists support Trump? Does that suggest that Trump will try to reintroduce legal segregation?

I absolutely agree.

But that is easy for me because I am neither a Trump supporter nor a Republican. Maybe you mean for one of those to answer this?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because it's irrelevant? the claim is that Clinton and the Democrats are going to 'take your guns', pointing out that there are some people attached to the Democratic Party advocating things that will never become policy in a millennium is not the same. I would be more concerned about Trump not so subtly inferring someone should murder Clinton...

I'm not trying to build an argument here. If it is irrelevant then there is no problem answering. Are the majority of people who want to take away guns in this country Democrat?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not trying to build an argument here. If it is irrelevant then there is no problem answering. Are the majority of people who want to take away guns in this country Democrat?

I'm a Democrat, a hunter, a gun owner and I don't think that is true. If you said they want to keep criminals, the mentally unstable and terrorists from procuring guns I'd agree. But this idea that Democrats want to take your 12 guage away from you is absurd.

 

[Fudbucker]

I thought a bomb was probable. But Cuomo's statement came after confirmation it was a bomb, yes? If so, he's merely making a claim about the definition of terrorism: intentionally setting off a bomb in a crowded area is an act of terror.

Trump's comments came when the source of the explosion had not yet been determined. It was reckless for a person in apparent authority to say that.

I don't know when confirmation of a bomb happened. You could replace "bomb" with "explosion" in that Cuomo quote I linked and it would be just as true. As soon as I heard "New York" and "explosion" I thought "terrorism", just like everyone else, and I probably would have given you 50-1 odds on a forum bet.

And Trump isn't an authority figure. He's trying to get elected as one. Trump's speculation of terrorism was so obviously on the money it was about as irresponsible as driving 60 in a 55 zone. But there was a reason he said what he said. There's an obvious message there:

Over-cautiousness can be just as bad as recklessness, and I'm not going to be overly cautious. I'm not going to read "The Pet Goat" to children after the planes hit the buildings. Presidents have to make snap decisions sometimes on very little information, and I'm going to err on the side of "if it's an explosion in New York, it's probably terrorism".

People eat that stuff up now, and not just in America.

I can't say what the average voter prefers, but for my money, I much prefer a willingness to wait for the local authorities to determine the cause before claiming it's a bomb.

Sure, that's the responsible thing to do. But even after confirmation of a bomb, there are scenarios where it's not terrorism. It could have been teenagers messing around, not meaning to hurt anyone. It could have been a schizophrenic acting out on some paranoid persecution fantasy. At some point, authority figures have to say what they think.

Remember OKC? In the hours after the explosion, rumors of Middle Eastern suspects were common. Suppose that had been Trump's year. Do you suppose he would have waited to see where the investigation led, or do you suppose he would have immediately blamed Islamic terrorists? And, if the latter, would that have been a good thing to do?

Oh, I'm sure he would have blamed Muslims. But that goes both ways. Would Trump have been better in a 9/11 situation than Bush, who froze up after it was obvious we were under attack? Would Trump (or any of his officials) have balked at beefing up embassy security before the 9/11 anniversary? I think Stevens would have gotten the extra security he asked for in June.

 

[phiwum]

I absolutely agree.

But that is easy for me because I am neither a Trump supporter nor a Republican. Maybe you mean for one of those to answer this?

Wow. I absolutely do not agree.

I agree that White Nationalists tend to prefer Trump and that they would like to re-segregate the U.S. I'll go so far as to say that Trump has obvious racist tendencies.

I don't believe for a moment that Trump would try to re-segregate the U.S.

Similarly, anti-gun folks will naturally prefer Hillary, by and large, and Hillary would probably prefer that there were fewer guns on the streets, but I don't believe for a moment that she will try to outlaw guns.[1]

[1] I wouldn't be surprised if she placed restrictions on certain kinds of guns, but I mean outlaw guns quite broadly.

 

[phiwum]

I don't know when confirmation of a bomb happened. You could replace "bomb" with "explosion" in that Cuomo quote I linked and it would be just as true. As soon as I heard "New York" and "explosion" I thought "terrorism", just like everyone else, and I probably would have given you 50-1 odds on a forum bet.

Let's try:

"An explosion in New York is obviously an act of terrorism," Gov. Andrew Cuomo told reporters Sunday, vowing that authorities will catch whoever is responsible.

Nope. Doesn't work. Not every explosion in NY is an act of terrorism, so it cannot be that every explosion is "obviously" an act of terrorism.

And Trump isn't an authority figure. He's trying to get elected as one. Trump's speculation of terrorism was so obviously on the money it was about as irresponsible as driving 60 in a 55 zone. But there was a reason he said what he said.

The highlighted is enough to justify criticizing him.

There's an obvious message there:

Over-cautiousness can be just as bad as recklessness, and I'm not going to be overly cautious. I'm not going to read "The Pet Goat" to children after the planes hit the buildings. Presidents have to make snap decisions sometimes on very little information, and I'm going to err on the side of "if it's an explosion in New York, it's probably terrorism".

People eat that stuff up now, and not just in America.

I'm not saying anything about what other voters think. Trump is reckless and does not depend on facts. This is reason enough for my concern.

Sure, that's the responsible thing to do. But even after confirmation of a bomb, there are scenarios where it's not terrorism. It could have been teenagers messing around, not meaning to hurt anyone. It could have been a schizophrenic acting out on some paranoid persecution fantasy. At some point, authority figures have to say what they think.

I'll agree that even Cuomo has gone a bit beyond the facts when he claims this is obviously terrorism, but the odds are quite good that this was an intentional act aimed at harming innocents.

[QUOTE\]
Oh, I'm sure he would have blamed Muslims. But that goes both ways. Would Trump have been better in a 9/11 situation than Bush, who froze up after it was obvious we were under attack? Would Trump (or any of his officials) have balked at beefing up embassy security before the 9/11 anniversary? I think Stevens would have gotten the extra security he asked for in June.[/QUOTE]

No, Trump would not have been better than Bush. Bush's reaction in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was surprisingly good. (Later, when he chose to invade Iraq, of course he was foolish, but in the immediate aftermath, Bush chose to point out the obvious: this is not a war against Islam. Trump would never say such a thing, and so he would invite violence against Muslims in the U.S.)

 

[BobTheCoward]

Wow. I absolutely do not agree.

I agree that White Nationalists tend to prefer Trump and that they would like to re-segregate the U.S. I'll go so far as to say that Trump has obvious racist tendencies.

I don't believe for a moment that Trump would try to re-segregate the U.S.

Similarly, anti-gun folks will naturally prefer Hillary, by and large, and Hillary would probably prefer that there were fewer guns on the streets, but I don't believe for a moment that she will try to outlaw guns.[1]

[1] I wouldn't be surprised if she placed restrictions on certain kinds of guns, but I mean outlaw guns quite broadly.

My agreement only applied to the question that began "do you agree". It did not extend to the other question.

 

[phiwum]

My agreement only applied to the question that began "do you agree". It did not extend to the other question.

Fair enough, but in that case, the fact that anti-gun folks tend to support Hillary is not good evidence that Hillary wants to ban guns.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm a Democrat, a hunter, a gun owner and I don't think that is true. If you said they want to keep criminals, the mentally unstable and terrorists from procuring guns I'd agree. But this idea that Democrats want to take your 12 guage away from you is absurd.

That isn't what I asked. I asked if the majority that do are Democrats. For example, if there are 10,000 people in this country that want UK style gun laws. 5,001 are Democrats (or as low as 3,335 if you do some independent/Republican splits, whatever way we look at it).

 

[BobTheCoward]

Fair enough, but in that case, the fact that anti-gun folks tend to support Hillary is not good evidence that Hillary wants to ban guns.

Which I never implied.

 

[phiwum]

Which I never implied.

Okay. I suppose I'm unclear on the point of your question.

Yes, more anti-gun folks support Hillary than support Trump. I think that's obvious. And so?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Okay. I suppose I'm unclear on the point of your question.

Yes, more anti-gun folks support Hillary than support Trump. I think that's obvious. And so?

I'm looking for consensus on the outer bounds of the issue.. Acbytesla seems to disagree.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Only if you can show anyone wants to 'take' your guns. Simply show us a statement from any elected representative of the Democratic Party advocating the seizure of weapons or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Or are you simply lumping all forms of gun control under 'take your guns'?

ETA: make it easier for you. Here's some of the provisions of the 'Brady Bill':



which of these groups is being unfairly denied their right to bear arms?

Do you count the fact that new York confiscates unregistered firearms from their owners?

To clarify, these are guns people owned before new York made them illegal to own.

 

[phiwum]

Do you count the fact that new York confiscates unregistered firearms from their owners?

To clarify, these are guns people owned before new York made them illegal to own.

I'm not familiar with the law, but I assume you mean "New York made them illegal to own without registering them."

This isn't the sort of situation one usually means when discussing laws aimed at taking guns away.

 

[acbytesla]

Do you count the fact that new York confiscates unregistered firearms from their owners?

To clarify, these are guns people owned before new York made them illegal to own.

They can still register their guns. It's not hard. The problem with guns in NYC is much different than it is in Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska or Alaska.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't believe for a moment that Trump would try to re-segregate the U.S.

Quite. That would be, to say the least, radical, and contrary to some people's belief, Trump is in no sense a radical. The status quo suits him very well - in fact without the status quo he'd just be a worthless bum not a worthless rich-kid. Trump's only concern is to amplify his own role within that status quo.

In cannot be stressed enough that for Trump literally everything is about himself. He is an infant in a grown man's flabby body.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not familiar with the law, but I assume you mean "New York made them illegal to own without registering them."

This isn't the sort of situation one usually means when discussing laws aimed at taking guns away.

But people talk about registering protests as stripping away the right to free speech.

 

[CapelDodger]

I would like to express my warmest regards, best wishes and condolences to all of the families and victims of the horrible bombing in NYC.​

Condolences to the families of the fictional dead? How ghoulish again. Warmest regards and best wishes? Usually used for weddings and polite query emails.

How the hell do you screw up sending thoughts, prayers and wishing a speedy recovery?

Ladewig nailed it, of course - no empathy.

Infants lack empathy: it's something which develops around 3 years in normal people. And infants are hateful creatures. We don't hate them, because they're infants. We make allowances. They'll grow out of it.

There are no allowances to be made for Trump. He is hateful and justifiably hated.

 

[CapelDodger]

But people talk about registering protests as stripping away the right to free speech.

Wtf?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chuck Todd is interviewing jello-on-the-wall Conway on MTP. Why does he bother? Have any of the Trumpers even once actually addressed an issue?

Pivot to Clinton
Trump is not a politician
You'll have to ask him
I wasn't there, or don't know
Trump is the most fantastic man ever
Pivot to Clinton

If I had the time I'd love to do a media analysis of these Trump-bots.