• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency: Sweet/Sweat 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump Retweeted
Breitbart News
@BreitbartNews
Everything is on the line. "...the Democrats will move for an outright repeal of the Second Amendment," said @RepMoBrooks (R-AL).
 
And the US still leads the UK in the political nuttiness stakes. But we're closing fast.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Sunday Express is reporting that Boris will 'sabotage' and 'paralyse' the EU if he doesn't get his exit
Apparently he will use the EU’s own rules to bring it to a standstill from November 1 unless the deadlock on Brexit is ended. and that “I refuse to accept Corbyn’s pointless delay.” and vowed to *simply “carry on” if Corbyn again blocks an election.
Click to expand...

This seems like it'd be a better fit for the Brexit thread.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday. They were coming to the United States tonight. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to..

....an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position? They didn’t, they....

....only made it worse! If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/157918533655871488

While @BarackObama is slashing the military, he is also negotiating with our sworn enemy the Taliban--who facilitated 9/11.
Click to expand...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Retweeted
Breitbart News
@BreitbartNews
Everything is on the line. "...the Democrats will move for an outright repeal of the Second Amendment," said @RepMoBrooks (R-AL).
Click to expand...

Then why are the Republicans acting so weird? Such a move would require a new Cobsitutional Amendment and every political analyst in the country knows that there is 0.0000% chance of such an amendment passing.


Also, dont they find it tiring to constantly scream about all the bad things that will happen if the Republicans dot get Re-elected?
 
Just saw this in my Twitter feed:

48698508651_9298afe121_z.jpg


Screenshot of a video posted by Trump comparing his doctored chart to CNN distracted by a cat’s laser toy.
 
shemp said:
And Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Boris Johnson were also going to be there to sing a medley of Beatles' hits while riding pink unicorns for everyone's entertainment!
Click to expand...

No, I tend to think that this one might be true. It's possible that Afghanistan would back him and no one would believe the Taliban, but this would be an even dumber lie than the Sharpie.

I'll wait for reactions before I dismiss this as pure fabrication.
 
Pardon the slight derail, but again I found evidence relevant to an earlier conversation about universal background checks. I don't mean to open up a long discussion, since it's off-topic here, but I'd like to mention it.

The question is whether universal background checks would have prevented a significant number of mass shootings. Here's a recent AP article, which I found on Snopes.

In summary, the results are these:

Charleston: Error in data, a change in universal background checks is irrelevant.

Sutherland Springs: Data not uploaded, change in the law irrelevant.

Aurora: Guns were supposed to be confiscated, but police didn't followup. Change in law irrelevant.

Odessa: Private purchase, change in law would probably prevent this, at least make the purchase illegal.

Newton, Marysville, Santa Fe: Gun taken from relatives. Change in background checks irrelevant, perhaps laws about responsibility for securing weapons would be relevant.

The article lists a number of shootings where the weapons were legally acquired. The list is obviously nowhere near complete, so I think we should wonder about how shootings were chosen. This shouldn't count as anything like a scientific study, but importantly the reporter found only a single mass shooting that may have been prevented by background check expansion.

As I've said before, I'm not arguing that expansion wouldn't be useful, just that it's not useful for decreasing the number of horrific mass shootings that are the primary reason it's being discussed recently. I don't see that the article has changed my opinion. If someone thinks it would be useful at preventing other shootings (which seems plausible to me), it should be sold on those grounds.

Now, in order not to get dinged on a thread derail, I won't respond to any further posts here, but I could carry on the discussion in private or an appropriate thread. I usually avoid gun debate threads, but I'd make an exception here.
 
phiwum said:
Pardon the slight derail, but again I found evidence relevant to an earlier conversation about universal background checks. I don't mean to open up a long discussion, since it's off-topic here, but I'd like to mention it.

The question is whether universal background checks would have prevented a significant number of mass shootings. Here's a recent AP article, which I found on Snopes.

In summary, the results are these:

Charleston: Error in data, a change in universal background checks is irrelevant.

Sutherland Springs: Data not uploaded, change in the law irrelevant.

Aurora: Guns were supposed to be confiscated, but police didn't followup. Change in law irrelevant.

Odessa: Private purchase, change in law would probably prevent this, at least make the purchase illegal.

Newton, Marysville, Santa Fe: Gun taken from relatives. Change in background checks irrelevant, perhaps laws about responsibility for securing weapons would be relevant.

The article lists a number of shootings where the weapons were legally acquired. The list is obviously nowhere near complete, so I think we should wonder about how shootings were chosen. This shouldn't count as anything like a scientific study, but importantly the reporter found only a single mass shooting that may have been prevented by background check expansion.

As I've said before, I'm not arguing that expansion wouldn't be useful, just that it's not useful for decreasing the number of horrific mass shootings that are the primary reason it's being discussed recently. I don't see that the article has changed my opinion. If someone thinks it would be useful at preventing other shootings (which seems plausible to me), it should be sold on those grounds.

Now, in order not to get dinged on a thread derail, I won't respond to any further posts here, but I could carry on the discussion in private or an appropriate thread. I usually avoid gun debate threads, but I'd make an exception here.
Click to expand...

Another way to write that is up to a 20% reduction.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump abruptly cancels Afghan peace deal with Taliban



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49624132
Click to expand...

I see nothing in there that confirms that there actually was such a meeting scheduled at Camp David today. It's still only his claim.

I'm well aware that talks have been going on for quite some time. But IF this meeting really was to take place and he abruptly cancelled it over a single incident, his action is incredibly stupid.

Quote from the BBC link:

In a statement, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said the talks were going well until Saturday.

Pulling out of the peace process before the signing of the agreement - because of one explosion - shows the US's lack of maturity and experience, he added.
Click to expand...

No, it shows Trump's lack of maturity and experience. These negatiations have been going on for a year, a lot of people have put hard work into this, it could potentially save many thousands of lives, it could bring our troops home, and now he may have thrown it all away just to look good to his idiotic base!
 
Last edited:
shemp said:
...he may have thrown it all away just to look good to his idiotic base!
Click to expand...

This has always been Trump's pattern. With the football league, the airline, the casinos. He makes a good start, unorthodox, but he seems like he not only knows what he's doing he may just be able to pull it off. After time, the cracks begin to appear and things start to go south. Finally, everything collapses. Then it becomes clear to everyone, he didn't know what he was doing, after all. Not a clue.

We know him in New York City. We have been exposed to a steady diet of him since the 1980s. There's a reason why Trump lost the city -- his hometown -- 80-20 in the 2016 election. :(
 
newyorkguy said:
This has always been Trump's pattern. With the football league, the airline, the casinos. He makes a good start, unorthodox, but he seems like he not only knows what he's doing he may just be able to pull it off. After time, the cracks begin to appear and things start to go south. Finally, everything collapses. Then it becomes clear to everyone, he didn't know what he was doing, after all. Not a clue.

We know him in New York City. We have been exposed to a steady diet of him since the 1980s. There's a reason why Trump lost the city -- his hometown -- 80-20 in the 2016 election. :(
Click to expand...

Well that's because 5 million Mexican illegals were bused into the city and voted! :D
 
Another thing: If there was a SECRET meeting that was supposed to take place today (and I'm not yet convinced there was), it sure isn't secret anymore. If he really wanted to cancel the meeting for his claimed reasons, he could have still kept it secret. But by shooting off his damn fool mouth again, he has likely ensured that such a meeting will never take place. The whole process is probably down the drain.

But I'm sure he'll find a way to blame Obama.
 
shemp said:
Well that's because 5 million Mexican illegals were bused into the city and voted! :D
Click to expand...

Nah, we only needed one million voting 5 times each by changing their clothes and getting in line again. It's easy on Planet Trump.
 
shemp said:
I see nothing in there that confirms that there actually was such a meeting scheduled at Camp David today. It's still only his claim.

I'm well aware that talks have been going on for quite some time. But IF this meeting really was to take place and he abruptly cancelled it over a single incident, his action is incredibly stupid.

Quote from the BBC link:



No, it shows Trump's lack of maturity and experience. These negatiations have been going on for a year, a lot of people have put hard work into this, it could potentially save many thousands of lives, it could bring our troops home, and now he may have thrown it all away just to look good to his idiotic base!
Click to expand...

It was always going to fail anyway. What in the last two and a half years could give anyone faith that Trump and his administration of empty desks and morons could pull this off? If he did make a deal he'd have gotten played like he always does. When Trump fails the nation succeeds.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Nah, we only needed one million voting 5 times each by changing their clothes and getting in line again. It's easy on Planet Trump.
Click to expand...

Why bother changing clothes when one only needs to go to their car and just change hats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom