nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is America imploding?

degsie

Mass shootings, cops vs blacks, whites vs cops, too many guns...... and now Trump.

Doesn't bode well.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Father Hernandez

It'll be grand.

Mr Joe

Another garbage thread.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Yawn...........

The flying mouse

Sure it be grand when they have a cuppa around tbe table.

degsie

Hugh Mungus wrote: »

Yawn...........

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101688809&postcount=5

hannible the cannible

You can never have enough guns , that's what stops people with guns killing other people

Ulysses Gaze

degsie wrote: »

Mass shootings, cops vs blacks, whites vs cops, too many guns...... and now Trump.

Doesn't bode well.

All of that, bar Trump, has been going on for years.

America is not imploding.

lc180

degsie wrote: »

Mass shootings, cops vs blacks, whites vs cops, too many guns...... and now Trump.

Doesn't bode well.

Greatest country in the world...... supposedly.

Renegade Mechanic

degsie wrote: »

Mass shootings, cops vs blacks, whites vs cops, too many guns...... and now Trump.

Doesn't bode well.

With every trillion more in the red, the pot must be stirred proportionally harder for the required distraction from the fact..

Atlantic Dawn

Mass shootings at zero since Trump was elected.

[Deleted User]

Surely a country that has slashed crime rates since the early 90s might argue that it is certainly not imploding?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Mass shootings at zero since Trump was elected.

Not a single 9/11 either.

RobertKK

No, it will be great again.

Vincent Vega

degsie wrote: »

Mass shootings, cops vs blacks, whites vs cops, too many guns...... and now Trump.

Oil to the machine.

gramar

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely a country that has slashed crime rates since the early 90s might argue that it is certainly not imploding?

There are only 2.3 million of them in prison and that figure is steadily rising.

Sam Kade

degsie wrote: »

Mass shootings, cops vs blacks, whites vs cops, too many guns...... and now Trump.

Doesn't bode well.

Why is everyone afraid of their sh1t of Trump?

[Deleted User]

gramar wrote: »

There are only 2.3 million of them in prison and that figure is steadily rising.

A falling crime rate and a rising prison population points to a successful crack down on crime (or of course to Levitt and Dubner's take on the implications of Roe v Wade). Which may or may not be a good thing...but it's not an explosion of crime as suggested in the first post.

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

degsie wrote: »

Mass shootings, cops vs blacks, whites vs cops, too many guns...... and now Trump.

Doesn't bode well.

Yes degsie, yes it is.

Special Circumstances

Sam Kade wrote: »

Why is everyone afraid of their sh1t of Trump?

You'd swear there was a completely non scarey alternative like... cmon like, hilary :eek:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Sam Kade wrote: »

Why is everyone afraid of their sh1t of Trump?

The only people who are afraid are liberal lefties who blindfolded themselves to the reality that Trump could be elected, and while blindfolded couldn't see how awful Hillary Clinton was.
Then they were left in horror and crying as if Hillary 'I voted for and supported every war going, plus neocons backed me' Clinton was some great loss to society, when I just think of all the possible lives that could have been saved by her defeat.

There were a lot of people with blindfolds on, or else maybe people enjoy war coverage on the news...might be a lot of people secretly in the #LovingWar closet.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

The only people who are afraid are liberal lefties who blindfolded themselves to the reality that Trump could be elected, and while blindfolded couldn't see how awful Hillary Clinton was.
Then they were left in horror and crying as if Hillary 'I voted for and supported every war going, plus neocons backed me' Clinton was some great loss to society, when I just think of all the possible lives that could have been saved by her defeat.

There were a lot of people with blindfolds on, or else maybe people enjoy war coverage on the news...might be a lot of people secretly in the #LovingWar closet.

Hey Robert, how do you feel about John 'Bomb Iran' Bolton possibly becoming the new SoS?

The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Hey Robert, how do you feel about John 'Bomb Iran' Bolton possibly becoming the new SoS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html

John Bolton is an awful choice if he does become SoS, unless he had a lobotomy.

Maximus Alexander

What I'm trying to find out is when was it great the first time?

jimgoose

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

What I'm trying to find out is when was it great the first time?

Nineteen-and-dickety-two. That idjit Harding was in office, sitting in his bathtub filled with champagne and hoors and generally minding his own business. Industrial relations consisted of J. Titian McBrodie, the steel magnate, burning down the entire town of Buttfuck, Illinois in response to a dispute over an extra toilet break per shift. Every grown man ate bacon and dairy products 'til his arteries solidified, as per his sworn duty, by-God scratched his balls any place and hour of the day that suited him, bought his house for a half-years wages down the Auto plant, and had the right to wallop his own <insert ethnic slang-term here>. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive.

BrokenArrows

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely a country that has slashed crime rates since the early 90s might argue that it is certainly not imploding?

Well the crime rates were insanely high so its kinda like cleaning a few bricks in a sewer and claiming that you're improving things.
They are improving things towards being the same as other modern nations around the world.

But the biggest issue is their debt. At some point its all going to come crashing down.

jimgoose

BrokenArrows wrote: »

...But the biggest issue is their debt. At some point its all going to come crashing down.

Bleh. The defecit was €1.4 trillion shortly after the Knickerbocker Panic of 'ought-seven, or 10% of U.S. GDP. The current €19 trillion figure looks huge, but at ~2.5% of GDP it's only a problem if you can't service it, or if some people think you can't service it, or if they don't shut up about it because you have loads of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

Earthhorse

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Those other things account for a lot of why people are afraid though. They include characterising Mexicans as criminals and rapists, while allowing that "some" may be good, which implies that most are not; calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US; saying that if NATO allies were to be attached he may not defend them; announcing that he would not necessarily respect the outcome of the election; calling for the opposition candidate to be jailed and describing statements from US intelligence agencies during the election as "PR" exercises. This is not an exhaustive list.

Whether he actually comes through on much of the above or not remains to be seen but as of right now I think people have every right and reason to be afraid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, let's.

Trump claimed that the Mexican government sends rapists and criminals
across the border to the US, presumably to get them out of their own country. Whether that's true or not (and a large pinch of salt may be required here) he didn't claim that "Most Mexicans are criminals and rapists," or anything of the sort. He said that many of the people who are (allegedly) being sent across the border are criminals and rapists.

That's only moderately better. He is playing on people's worst sentiments and fears about others. He, of course, has no evidence that the people crossing the border are as he imagines them to be.

As for NATO allies, Trump has taken the stance that the US taxpayer bears a disproportionate burden of the cost of defending other countries, and that it's time for those countries to contribute more to the communal defense. In short, if you want to continue benefiting from the services of the US military, as supported by the US taxpayer, pay your fair share. Seems like a reasonable enough position.

Again, he has said that he is not sure he would defend NATO allies were they to be attacked. It's perfectly reasonable to expect countries to meet their budgetary obligations and if that's all he had said people would not be worried.

The Muslim ban comment was indeed egregious, although he very quickly rowed back on that, saying that he would favor "extreme vetting" of immigrants from some Muslim countries. The context, of course, was the San Bernardino shooting in which one of the attackers (with preexisting terror connections) had entered the United States on a fiancee visa. I personally have no issue with conducting more intensive background checks on such people.

You agree it was egregious so. Perhaps he should be careful not to be so reactionary when he has a microphone onto the world. His words embolden the least judicious amongst us.

He was indeed wrong to say that he would not respect the outcome of the election. Ironically, though, some of the liberals who gasped in horror at that remark went on to riot in the streets when their own candidate lost. It seems to me that many liberals were happy to respect the outcome as long as they thought Hillary would win.

Who cares about them? This is about Trump. They are not about to assume the most powerful office in the modern world. Trump is.

As for threatening to jail his opponent -- I watched the debate where that comment was made, and it appeared to me that Trump was saying that if he had been president while she was mishandling classified information through a private email server, he'd have advocated to have her prosecuted and potentially jailed. He did not say, as far as I recall, "I will put you in prison if I win." The president, of course, cannot unilaterally have someone thrown in prison.

But he was quite happy at rallies to allow chants of "Lock her up!" to be a part and parcel of his routine. It feels to me like you are splitting hairs here. He may not have been making a promise to prosecute her once in office, nor have the authority to do so once there; the fact that he trades on such threats alone is cause for concern.

In brief, I think that when one looks at Trump's own words, and the context in which his remarks were made, rather than how the media has spun those words (often misquoted and out of context), they don't exactly look as ominous and threatening as they've been portrayed.

Every politician's words are quoted and spun of out context. Trump's look worse than others because even in context, they are. I have no idea why you're trying to mitigate them except that you seem to enjoy the fact that many liberals are now crestfallen following Trumps victory.

The man has run the most hate filled campaign by a wide margin for a long time and seems to have an incredibly volatile temperament. Even a prudent person would be right to be worried about what this bodes.