Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[BobTheCoward]

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.

I was talking about the state. We can talk about the city. The did outlaw weapons with a high capacity and did send letters of confiscation to people with registered weapons.

 

[Garrison]

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?

No you are attempting to set up a 'gotcha' to avoid the real question. The issue is can you support the contention that Hilary Clinton with a Democrat controlled House would enact legislation to 'take away guns'? So far you have offered up nothing to support this. Oh and I noticed you couldn't tell me which of those groups mentioned in the Brady Bill you felt were unfairly deprived of their right to bear arms.

 

[Fudbucker]

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.

In the context of an explosion happening in New Jersey just hours prior, and crude explosive devices being found, the explosion in New York was obviously terrorism, obviously another bomb. When's the last time a bomb went off, and then an explosion happened in a large city close to the original bombing and it wasn't terrorism?

An explosion that went off in a garbage can Saturday morning in a New Jersey beach town likely was timed to disrupt a Marine Corps charity run, authorities said.

Three pipe-bomb-type devices wired together were found near the boardwalk in Seaside Park. No injuries were reported and a four-block area was evacuated for most of the day, authorities said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/us/nj-explosive-trash-can/

It was so obvious, Clinton also referred to it as a "bombing" and then hilariously called Trump out for jumping to conclusions:

"CLINTON: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also to pray for the victims. We have to let the investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials including in the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation and I'll have more to say about it when we actually have the facts.

REPORTER: Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?

CLINTON: Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this. That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...e_to_say_when_we_actually_know_the_facts.html

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.

Funny how Clinton escapes similar criticism.

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 he is, but not on this one. Both he and Clinton came to the same conclusion because the odds of a non-terrorist explosion happening hours after a pipe bomb almost kills/injures a bunch of cops in NJ is too ridiculous to consider.

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.

The odds were good as soon as the explosion happened.

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.

No, Trump would not have been better than Bush. Bush's reaction in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was surprisingly good.

Bush's reaction after the second plane hit was to read to children for seven more minutes. Liberals like Michael Moore pilloried Bush for it and rightly so. He obviously froze up.

Trump does a lot of stupid things, but freeze up isn't one of them. He would have been screaming terrorism when the first plane hit. Would it have made a difference? Who knows. Bin Laden thought so:

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/w...o-message-bin-laden-issues-warning-to-us.html

Maybe he was just trying to tweak Bush, but the attacks were staggered and maybe if Bush had reacted after the first plane hit, something could have been done. We'll never know. But I don't think Bush should have hung out with children after the second plane hit, do you?

As far as invading Iraq, I'm not sure Trump would have made that call. He tepidly supported it in a Howard Stern interview when it was clear the American war machine was gearing up for an invasion, but would Trump have put a bullseye on Iraq? I'm not sure. There were personal reasons for Bush wanting to go into Iraq that wouldn't have existed with Trump. We don't know what a president Trump would have done about Iraq, but we know what Senator Clinton did. And she made the same mistake again, in Libya. She has zero credibility, when it comes to foreign policy.

And you didn't bring up Benghazi. Does that mean you agree that under a Trump administration, Stevens would have gotten the security he asked for months before the attack? I think he would have.

(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.)

That's true. He would have pushed for a ban on Muslims, I'm sure. I'm not saying Trump would have been a better president than Bush. I'm saying at certain times, he wouldn't have made the same mistakes as Bush made. Trump's "it must be terrorism" attitude would have been better than Bush's deer-in-headlights response when the attacks were actually happening.

This whole episode of concluding a bombing had occurred after a bombing had just occurred in a neighboring state was so obvious that Clinton also referred to it as a bombing, but then stupidly called Trump out just moments afterward for jumping to conclusions. Another unforced error for Clinton. NBC is at least calling her out on it:

"While Hillary Clinton appeared to criticize Trump for immediately calling the incident a bombing, she initially referred to it the same way."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-trump-clinton-reacted-new-york-city-bombs-n650116

 

[BobTheCoward]

No you are attempting to set up a 'gotcha' to avoid the real question. The issue is can you support the contention that Hilary Clinton with a Democrat controlled House would enact legislation to 'take away guns'? So far you have offered up nothing to support this. Oh and I noticed you couldn't tell me which of those groups mentioned in the Brady Bill you felt were unfairly deprived of their right to bear arms.

Why would I try to argue that? I know she isn't.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

Hopefully not to derail the thread too much, but I'm a Democrat, not much of a hunter, and gun owner who has been active in the gun control debate.

It is absolutely true that most people who want to ban guns are Democrats. That is not to say that most Democrats want to ban guns, but those that do are almost all Democrats and Greens. There are a non-trivial number who do want to take, in effect, all guns (de facto bans), and a much larger number who would put in restrictions that ban entire broadly owned categories of firearms (some categories they invent themselves).

Yes, there are vastly more Dems who want other, less stringent, controls. I'm one of them. However, I butt heads with people who would, and in the case of my state, have, 'taken your 12 guage', provided it's semi-auto and it's handle is the wrong angle, or the barrel end is the wrong shape. For a long time, I was of the 'they aren't coming for your guns' crowd (and in most cases, they are still not), but we Democrats hand-wave this issue at our own peril. It was the same type of thinking that has led the Republicans to a base that nominated Trump. If we keep denying there is an issue, the minority support for that issue will feel more and more safe in our party. The proper thing to do is to say, "Yes, but I disagree with them and will oppose their implementing such measures." This helps establish the consensus or raises the internal debate to refine the argument. Otherwise, we remove our voices from the discussion at all, and cannot shape it. The NRA is starting down that road, because as the inevitability of additional gun control measures being implemented across the country becomes manifest, simply opposing it all means their voice could be, in effect, ignored by those who actually will create these measures. (Although if the people creating these measures actually listened to some gun folk, they could have some of it passed and be effective right now.)

Now, back to Trump failing at human.

 

[Garrison]

Why would I try to argue that? I know she isn't.

Great, end of discussion then.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Great, end of discussion then.

By end of discussion you mean too afraid to answer my question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[snip]

Are you seriously comparing Trump's reckless spouting off about a bombing incident to Clinton saying she's waiting for the facts as an example of Clinton being too over-cautious?

What would you have the POTUS do here, immediately call out the National Guard?

 

[BobTheCoward]

No you are attempting to set up a 'gotcha' to avoid the real question. The issue is can you support the contention that Hilary Clinton with a Democrat controlled House would enact legislation to 'take away guns'? So far you have offered up nothing to support this. Oh and I noticed you couldn't tell me which of those groups mentioned in the Brady Bill you felt were unfairly deprived of their right to bear arms.

1,3, 6, and 9 by the way.

 

[Fudbucker]

Are you seriously comparing Trump's reckless spouting off about a bombing incident to Clinton saying she's waiting for the facts as an example of Clinton being too over-cautious?

What would you have the POTUS do here, immediately call out the National Guard?

Apparently, you skipped this part, so I'll repost it:

"While Hillary Clinton appeared to criticize Trump for immediately calling the incident a bombing, she initially referred to it the same way.

"I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota," she said."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-trump-clinton-reacted-new-york-city-bombs-n650116

Clinton would have been fine if she hadn't contradicted herself like an idiot.

But shillaries gonna shill.

 

[Fudbucker]

Hopefully not to derail the thread too much, but I'm a Democrat, not much of a hunter, and gun owner who has been active in the gun control debate.

It is absolutely true that most people who want to ban guns are Democrats. That is not to say that most Democrats want to ban guns, but those that do are almost all Democrats and Greens. There are a non-trivial number who do want to take, in effect, all guns (de facto bans), and a much larger number who would put in restrictions that ban entire broadly owned categories of firearms (some categories they invent themselves).

Yes, there are vastly more Dems who want other, less stringent, controls. I'm one of them. However, I butt heads with people who would, and in the case of my state, have, 'taken your 12 guage', provided it's semi-auto and it's handle is the wrong angle, or the barrel end is the wrong shape. For a long time, I was of the 'they aren't coming for your guns' crowd (and in most cases, they are still not), but we Democrats hand-wave this issue at our own peril. It was the same type of thinking that has led the Republicans to a base that nominated Trump. If we keep denying there is an issue, the minority support for that issue will feel more and more safe in our party. The proper thing to do is to say, "Yes, but I disagree with them and will oppose their implementing such measures." This helps establish the consensus or raises the internal debate to refine the argument. Otherwise, we remove our voices from the discussion at all, and cannot shape it. The NRA is starting down that road, because as the inevitability of additional gun control measures being implemented across the country becomes manifest, simply opposing it all means their voice could be, in effect, ignored by those who actually will create these measures. (Although if the people creating these measures actually listened to some gun folk, they could have some of it passed and be effective right now.)

Now, back to Trump failing at human.

This. There are people who want to ban all guns, they're always Democrats, and the GOP has been scare-mongering on it since I've been alive.

 

[CapelDodger]

IIt was so obvious, Clinton also referred to it as a "bombing" and then hilariously called Trump out for jumping to conclusions

When?

REPORTER: Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?

CLINTON: Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this. That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened."

That's not "calling Trump out". Unless it's the reference to supporting the first responders - did Trump perhaps neglect that? I'd rather expect him to - they are just little people fulfilling their roles, after all. Like the victims.

So was that it?

I did see Trump declaring that "we need to get tough". Not much more than that really. And that, of course, is a fart. So just the fart from Trump. No news there, move along.

 

[phiwum]

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

That's not an argument I've ever heard, but I suppose that's up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Seems like a silly argument. I might as well claim that I drive 80 mph in order to protest the school zone, and you are stripping away my right to free speech by punishing me.

 

[Garrison]

This. There are people who want to ban all guns, they're always Democrats, and the GOP has been scare-mongering on it since I've been alive.

Odd that, you quote Tyr_13 and then misrepresent what he said. 'Most' is not 'all'. And as he pointed out that most is not even a majority of Democrats.

 

[Fudbucker]

When?

That's not "calling Trump out". Unless it's the reference to supporting the first responders - did Trump perhaps neglect that? I'd rather expect him to - they are just little people fulfilling their roles, after all. Like the victims.

So was that it?

I did see Trump declaring that "we need to get tough". Not much more than that really. And that, of course, is a fart. So just the fart from Trump. No news there, move along.

Are you kidding?

"CLINTON: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also to pray for the victims. We have to let the investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials including in the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation and I'll have more to say about it when we actually have the facts.

REPORTER: Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?

CLINTON: Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this. That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.

 

[CapelDodger]

This. There are people who want to ban all guns, they're always Democrats, and the GOP has been scare-mongering on it since I've been alive.

Are none of these people Socialists? Or Greens? Of no party because none of them are pure enough? Are they really always Democrats?

And how many are there, do you imagine. A few ten thousands nationwide? More? Less?

Even in the UK guns aren't banned. They're tightly regulated and we don't get many shootings to liven life up but they're not banned.

There are a lot of people in the US with a gun-fixation but only a small minority are fixated on getting rid of them. A lot more want no regulation at all.

 

[Darat]

Are you kidding?

"CLINTON: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also to pray for the victims. We have to let the investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials including in the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation and I'll have more to say about it when we actually have the facts.

REPORTER: Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?

CLINTON: Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this. That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.

Time line? Sources?

 

[phiwum]

In the context of an explosion happening in New Jersey just hours prior, and crude explosive devices being found, the explosion in New York was obviously terrorism, obviously another bomb. When's the last time a bomb went off, and then an explosion happened in a large city close to the original bombing and it wasn't terrorism?

As far as I know, there is no clear evidence that the two events are related. Initial reports suggest the New Jersey incident involved much smaller pipe bombs, the NYC incident may have involved bombs similar to those in Boston.

It was so obvious, Clinton also referred to it as a "bombing" and then hilariously called Trump out for jumping to conclusions:

"CLINTON: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also to pray for the victims. We have to let the investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials including in the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation and I'll have more to say about it when we actually have the facts.

REPORTER: Secretary, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately took the stage tonight, calling the explosion a 'bomb'?

CLINTON: Well I think it's important to know all of the facts about an incident like this. That's why it's critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to figure out what did happen. I think it's always wiser to wait to until you have information for making conclusions, because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...e_to_say_when_we_actually_know_the_facts.html





Funny how Clinton escapes similar criticism.

When did Clinton refer to it as a bomb? Was it before or after authorities said it was a bomb?

When did Trump refer to it as a bomb? Was it before or after authorities did the same?

The odds were good as soon as the explosion happened.

I'll grant a bomb was probable, but I prefer that a presidential candidate wait for the authorities to confirm.

A previous poster referred to Trump's comments on the Egypt Air flight. This is similar, but for one thing: as it happened, it was a bomb. But there was no harm in waiting for confirmation.

Bush's reaction after the second plane hit was to read to children for seven more minutes. Liberals like Michael Moore pilloried Bush for it and rightly so. He obviously froze up.

Trump does a lot of stupid things, but freeze up isn't one of them. He would have been screaming terrorism when the first plane hit. Would it have made a difference? Who knows. Bin Laden thought so:

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/w...o-message-bin-laden-issues-warning-to-us.html

Maybe he was just trying to tweak Bush, but the attacks were staggered and maybe if Bush had reacted after the first plane hit, something could have been done. We'll never know. But I don't think Bush should have hung out with children after the second plane hit, do you?

As far as invading Iraq, I'm not sure Trump would have made that call. He tepidly supported it in a Howard Stern interview when it was clear the American war machine was gearing up for an invasion, but would Trump have put a bullseye on Iraq? I'm not sure. There were personal reasons for Bush wanting to go into Iraq that wouldn't have existed with Trump. We don't know what a president Trump would have done about Iraq, but we know what Senator Clinton did. And she made the same mistake again, in Libya. She has zero credibility, when it comes to foreign policy.

And you didn't bring up Benghazi. Does that mean you agree that under a Trump administration, Stevens would have gotten the security he asked for months before the attack? I think he would have.

It means I don't have an opinion on Benghazi and especially not a guess on how Trump might've handled it.

That's true. He would have pushed for a ban on Muslims, I'm sure. I'm not saying Trump would have been a better president than Bush. I'm saying at certain times, he wouldn't have made the same mistakes as Bush made. Trump's "it must be terrorism" attitude would have been better than Bush's deer-in-headlights response when the attacks were actually happening.

This whole episode of concluding a bombing had occurred after a bombing had just occurred in a neighboring state was so obvious that Clinton also referred to it as a bombing, but then stupidly called Trump out just moments afterward for jumping to conclusions. Another unforced error for Clinton. NBC is at least calling her out on it:

"While Hillary Clinton appeared to criticize Trump for immediately calling the incident a bombing, she initially referred to it the same way."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-trump-clinton-reacted-new-york-city-bombs-n650116

The previous event in New Jersey might be coincidence, and it might not. I'm not leaping to any conclusions regarding that claim either.

 

[Fudbucker]

Odd that, you quote Tyr_13 and then misrepresent what he said. 'Most' is not 'all'. And as he pointed out that most is not even a majority of Democrats.

Tyr didn't go far enough. Most Democrats don't want to ban guns, but the people that want to ban guns are always Democrats (or some far-leftist liberal), and the states that have extreme gun restrictions are always blue states.

 

[Fudbucker]

Time line? Sources?

Seriously?