Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Dotsie~tmp

Midlife wrote: »

Why isn't the genie going back in the bottle?

People can envisage building thhousands of miles of game of thrones-esuqe wall along their southern border but you can simply make assault weapons illegal?

Step 1: Introduce gun licenses

Step 2: Make assault weapons illegal and have mandatory buyback

Anyone found to be in posession of an assault weapon at a later stage loses their gun license.

Of course some people won't take heed but at least they'll stop making them. They'll gradually dry up until the last ones are in the hand of gun enthisiasists who never returned them. Ammo for them will be scarce so none of your responsibole gun owners are going to do anything but keep them strictly for themselves.

You are missing some immovable facts.

- Americans will never give up the second amendment. It’s a right not a privilege.
- Do you even know what an “assault rifle” means? What calibre weapon? Trigger mechanism (auto, semi, bolt)? It has no definition that even means anything outside gun grabber circles.
- Americans are aware why they have the second amendment. It’s the ultimate power check by the people against unchecked state power and tyranny. Which Europe has and probably will continue to descend into with alarming regularity. The down side of incidental gun violence is a price they are more than willing to pay to retain that God given right.
- The US government does not actually have the ability to confiscate half a billion weapons. First some of the most ardent adherents are those who bravely fill the ranks of their law enforcement and military. The very people the radical left imagine will confiscate these weapons in their fantasy are the ones who would turn on and absolutely smash them if they tried. Do you think the lefty cowards will leave their urban coffee shops and mansions to go house to house in a gruelling civil conflict that would wipe of the first wave of confiscators by their third house visit? Wake the fu*k up.
- I hope it happens quick and decisively. There’s a storm brewing globally between collectivist ideas and energies and individualist ones, once again. It’s inbuilt into human nature and the flow between yin and yang. Inevitable.
- Radical leftists are right about one thing. The rise of the right should terrify them. There has been no machine so lethal and destructive as the men of western nations in combined arms and common cause. They are biting a dragons tail while it sleeps. If they wake it up it will be ugly.

everlast75

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

You are missing some immovable facts.

- Americans will never give up the second amendment. It’s a right not a privilege.
- Do you even know what an “assault rifle” means? What calibre weapon? Trigger mechanism (auto, semi, bolt)? It has no definition that even means anything outside gun grabber circles.
- Americans are aware why they have the second amendment. It’s the ultimate power check by the people against unchecked state power and tyranny. Which Europe has and probably will continue to descend into with alarming regularity. The down side of incidental gun violence is a price they are more than willing to pay to retain that God given right.
- The US government does not actually have the ability to confiscate half a billion weapons. First some of the most ardent adherents are those who bravely fill the ranks of their law enforcement and military. The very people the radical left imagine will confiscate these weapons in their fantasy are the ones who would turn on and absolutely smash them if they tried. Do you think the lefty cowards will leave their urban coffee shops and mansions to go house to house in a gruelling civil conflict that would wipe of the first wave of confiscators by their third house visit? Wake the fu*k up.
- I hope it happens quick and decisively. There’s a storm brewing globally between collectivist ideas and energies and individualist ones, once again. It’s inbuilt into human nature and the flow between yin and yang. Inevitable.
- Radical leftists are right about one thing. The rise of the right should terrify them. There has been no machine so lethal and destructive as the men of western nations in combined arms and common cause. They are biting a dragons tail while it sleeps. If they wake it up it will be ugly.

The second amendment was written when basically a musket was modern technology. The idea that they believed it should apply when you can fire hundreds of rounds without reloading is nonsense.

Having an assault rifle protects you from the government? Really? The government couldn't obliterate you from 100 miles away. This argument is nonsense.

A god given right? Prove it.

And anyone who wants to save kids lives is a radical or a coward? And to try take guns away would cause a reaction akin to biting a dragon's tail? You have some serious perception (and it would appear anger) issues.

golfball37

eire4 wrote: »

I don't think the lives of people whos skin colour is not white have got any better or safer to put it mildly.

Really? African American employment rates are highest in history I read recently

realdanbreen

Fair sore head this mornibg. Great night in Doonbeg. Fair play to young Trump it must have cost him a fortune.

spacecoyote

golfball37 wrote: »

Really? African American employment rates are highest in history I read recently

OK, so in a an economy that's been growing solidly for 10 years, unemployment has, unsurprisingly, dropped significantly across all areas of the US.

However, on the flip side of it, Hate Crimes have increased significantly every year since Trump has been in office, with, as far as I know, around 60% of the reported crimes being motivated by race or ethnicity.

So yeah, genuinely great, more people have jobs, but on the other side of it, more people are suffering because of Trumps rhetoric & stance on issues of race

pixelburp

golfball37 wrote: »

Really? African American employment rates are highest in history I read recently

Economies don't just turn around overnight, this really shouldn't need saying for a country whose own collapsed in 2008; the US economy has been on an upward curve for the last 10 years itself and to assign that success to Trump, who has been in power for approx. 2 years is reductionist, and projection. Hell, enough time hasn't even passed to get a full picture of these Trade War decisions yet (bailouts notwithstanding)

Dotsie~tmp

spacecoyote wrote: »

OK, so in a an economy that's been growing solidly for 10 years, unemployment has, unsurprisingly, dropped significantly across all areas of the US.

However, on the flip side of it, Hate Crimes have increased significantly every year since Trump has been in office, with, as far as I know, around 60% of the reported crimes being motivated by race or ethnicity.

So yeah, genuinely great, more people have jobs, but on the other side of it, more people are suffering because of Trumps rhetoric & stance on issues of race

When a radical faction redefined even speech or having a differing opinion as a “hate crime”. Then yeah such a metric might look ugly. But crime is falling across the board for the last 5 decades in America.

And nobody suffers because of rhetoric. Stop being silly. Unless we are going to define hurt feelings as suffering. Maybe you’ve just never encountered real suffering.

Dotsie~tmp

everlast75 wrote: »

The second amendment was written when basically a musket was modern technology. The idea that they believed it should apply when you can fire hundreds of rounds without reloading is nonsense.

Having an assault rifle protects you from the government? Really? The government couldn't obliterate you from 100 miles away. This argument is nonsense.

A god given right? Prove it.

And anyone who wants to save kids lives is a radical or a coward? And to try take guns away would cause a reaction akin to biting a dragon's tail? You have some serious perception (and it would appear anger) issues.

If the state has muskets and bayonets you need muskets and bayonets. If the state has AR-15s you need them. And to avoid the oh well the state has tanks and jets. The population doesn’t need this. A rifle is more than enough to kill someone before they ever step out their door and enter a fighting vehicle that might be used against the people. It’s quite balanced.

”The government couldn't obliterate you from 100 miles away”

If you are unfamiliar with how insurgent militia populations can overthrow far superior on paper state forces when well organised I’m not here to educate you on the matter. History is full of lessons.

“A god given right? Prove it.”

“You are the one arguing for the affirmative action to be taken. They have the weapons and belief already. I think you will find the onus is on you to prove the negative to change things pal 🙂

“And anyone who wants to save kids lives is a radical or a coward? And to try take guns away would cause a reaction akin to biting a dragon's tail? You have some serious perception (and it would appear anger) issues.”

The amendment is there to save everyone’s lives. From tyranny and genocidal regimes. The scales tips to the greater good of the amendment. It’s just not obvious because state tilts towards genocide are over longer cycles. But it always happens.

The usual ad-hominem personal attack thrown in at the end with a bit of projection maybe. Not with taking the low grade bait.

everlast75

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

”The government couldn't obliterate you from 100 miles away”

If you are unfamiliar with how insurgent militia populations can overthrow far superior on paper state forces when well organised I’m not here to educate you on the matter. History is full of lessons.

An insurgent militia can overthrow the US army? I thought they were the best army in the world?

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

“A god given right? Prove it.”

You are the one arguing for the affirmative action to be taken. They have the weapons and belief already. I think you will find the onus is on you to prove the negative to change things pal ��

You are saying that it is a god given right to have a firearm. I am asking you to prove precisely what you are saying. Prove to me that the right to a firearm is "god given". Can you do that?

spacecoyote

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

When a radical faction redefined even speech or having a differing opinion as a “hate crime”. Then yeah such a metric might look ugly. But crime is falling across the board for the last 5 decades in America.

And nobody suffers because of rhetoric. Stop being silly. Unless we are going to define hurt feelings as suffering. Maybe you’ve just never encountered real suffering.

Spoken just like a person who has never encountered real suffering!

You are correct, I have never had any serious suffering in my life. Plenty of sadness & loss, and have had some incidents that people would call tragedies, in my family, but not what I'd call "suffering", but that has no real bearing on the point I was making.

All I stated was that there has been a marked increase in the level of hate crimes in the US, and the numbers are estimated to be considerably worse than those that are reported as the vast majority of agencies don't do any reporting in relation to it.

I have no issue with differing opinions or people voicing them. I'm an educated white man. So, have I suffered any discrimination, not really. I'm from Tallaght, so did get a few veiled slaggings when I was in College, many years ago, but it hasn't had any lasting effects on me.

The simple reality is, Trump has emboldened racists to bring their vitriol into the public sphere because of his attitude & opinions. Call people snowflakes if you want, call me a snowflake if you want, I don't care. Its just my opinion, and the stats seem to back it up, that Trump is making the lives of non-whites in America (and really for people around the world), worse, not better

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

An insurgent militia can overthrow the US army? I thought they were the best army in the world?



You are saying that it is a god given right to have a firearm. I am asking you to prove precisely what you are saying. Prove to me that the right to a firearm is "god given". Can you do that?

This should be fun. In order to do that, you would have to prove the existence of a 'God'. Plus the US constitution doesn't mention "God".

spacecoyote

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This should be fun. In order to do that, you would have to prove the existence of a 'God'. Plus the US constitution doesn't mention "God".

Plus which God gives that right. Don't think Lord Buddha, or Lord Krishna are too fond of violence. And whilst that Spaghetti Monster lad is a big fan of pirates, I don't think he's too keen on everyone having the right to a gun

Professor Moriarty

spacecoyote wrote: »

Plus which God gives that right. Don't think Lord Buddha, or Lord Krishna are too fond of violence. And whilst that Spaghetti Monster lad is a big fan of pirates, I don't think he's too keen on everyone having the right to a gun

Could be Allah. Which is perfectly valid from a logical perspective.

mcmoustache

pixelburp wrote: »

Economies don't just turn around overnight, this really shouldn't need saying for a country whose own collapsed in 2008; the US economy has been on an upward curve for the last 10 years itself and to assign that success to Trump, who has been in power for approx. 2 years is reductionist, and projection. Hell, enough time hasn't even passed to get a full picture of these Trade War decisions yet (bailouts notwithstanding)

Even the growth itself hasn't been that great. At least not compared to Obama's first two years.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Even the growth itself hasn't been that great. At least not compared to Obama's first two years.

That is not a fair comparison regarding the S and P500. Obama took over just before the unprecedented bull market that started in March 2009.

I think both Obama and trump have done well with the economic cycles. Obama took over a runaway train and manage to steer it back to safety and stability. Trump presidency has seen great jobs numbers. Both have benefited from timing to a certain extent.

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not a fair comparison regarding the S and P500. Obama took over just before the unprecedented bull market that started in March 2009.

I think both Obama and trump have done well with the economic cycles. Obama took over a runaway train and manage to steer it back to safety and stability. Trump presidency has seen great jobs numbers. Both have benefited from timing to a certain extent.

And how does the deficit compare as between Obama's tenure and Trump's?

I think that is a fair indicator in terms of economic performance and therefore relevant.

Leroy42

Its fair in as much as Trump lauds the performance of the stock market as clear indication of his success without providing any commentary as to the cycle he is in and the work that Obama did in order to provide the platform.

Standman

Stallingrad wrote: »

It is interesting though that despite the over whelming anti Trump sentiment nationally, that in a small corner of Ireland where he has injected money and employment that sentiment begins to change. Some of those benefitting economically from his employment begin to turn a blind eye to the man's many failings. In a way it becomes a small microcosm of America.

It's a bit of an eye opener to see how quickly a few euro will make people turn a blind eye to their principles, even here despite our more liberal leanings.

Yeah, an even more clear case is China. Despite their repressive government, for the most part their population is happy simply because they're financially secure and have good public services. One poll shows their youth is among the most optimistic about the future in the world, ahead of all Western countries.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

And how does the deficit compare as between Obama's tenure and Trump's?

I think that is a fair indicator in terms of economic performance and therefore relevant.

Deficits don't matter to people who are unemployed and can't feed their families. Jobs is the most important factor.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Deficits don't matter to people who are unemployed and can't feed their families. Jobs is the most important factor.

This is true. Most people are concerned with jobs. The problem is that jobs or the lack of jobs will be affected by other aspects of economic performance. For example, in the Bush years, he had three straight years of reduction on the unemployment rate.



Unfortunately, employment isn't an economic statistic that exists in isolation. As you can see from the image, that reduction in unemployment preceded a massive increase in unemployment.

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

Deficits don't matter to people who are unemployed and can't feed their families. Jobs is the most important factor.

I understand jobs are obviously important, but so is fiscal responsibility.

To make a crude analogy, if I have 15 credit cards which are maxed out, to people who don't know any better, I am doing extremely well. In reality, my personal economy is in the toilet.

The deficit has to be repaid. That will form part of the budget going forward for decades. Mismanagement may not hit the pockets of those alive currently, but it will hit their grandkids' pockets. It is irresponsible not to address the issue.

It is comparable to not taking Climate Change seriously. Might not effect us now, but it will long term and to not have regard to it is short sighted.

Incidentally, it will be amazing how important the deficit becomes to republicans when the Democrats are in the White House when they try to make tax cuts for the average person, or deal with healthcare.

listermint

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair sore head this mornibg. Great night in Doonbeg. Fair play to young Trump it must have cost him a fortune.

Yeah ? Which bar were you in ?

Where did you stay at considering your not from Doonbeg. How long did the brothers stay for and what was said.

Midlife

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

If the state has muskets and bayonets you need muskets and bayonets. If the state has AR-15s you need them. And to avoid the oh well the state has tanks and jets. The population doesn’t need this. A rifle is more than enough to kill someone before they ever step out their door and enter a fighting vehicle that might be used against the people. It’s quite balanced.

I disagree with much of what you've said but am especially curious about this bit.

What if the state get in their tanks and aircraft first? I mean how are you going to get past the fact that pilots will enter their aircraft on carriers long before the people can get to them. Additionally, what about the drones the state has?

Surely the logical conclusion is that the people must also have tanks and jets too? if you don't agree with this, can you please explain why?

realdanbreen

mcmoustache wrote: »

Even the growth itself hasn't been that great. At least not compared to Obama's first two years.

FFS! What has any of this to do with free porter in Doonbeg! We had a mighty night and even the young protesters joined in the sing song and had a few minerals.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He'd met and been interviewed by the guy on several occasions in the past.

Also , his "actions" in the clip are an almost exact reproduction of the manifestation of the journalists disability.

He knew EXACTLY what he was doing and why he was doing it.

There are clips of him doing that same impression of people who aren't disabled. There's an argument that its an impression he does of people he wants to mock, not specific to any disability.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

There are clips of him doing that same impression of people who aren't disabled. There's an argument that its an impression he does of people he wants to mock, not specific to any disability.

So what you're saying is that he mocks people in general by pretending they are "retards" (I hate that term) and not just actual disabled people.

And that is somehow better according to some people..

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So what you're saying is that he mocks people in general by pretending they are "retards" (I hate that term) and not just actual disabled people.

And that is somehow better according to some people..

Kinda. You added the part of pretending to be "retards". That's how right wingers spin it. I hate to reference Gavin McInnes of all people but he's put together a few clips of Trump doing the same action. It is pretty convincing that he's not mocking this reporter based on his disability.

https://youtu.be/gBpkMCa_D50?t=366

I think it's more accurate to say he mocked a reporter who happens to be disabled.

Then there's the normalisation of mocking disabilities. He's using a trope that people with disabilities are stupid, which is the only thing he is guilty of here imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCAF8HFPIWs

Gavin McInnes argued this is gesticulating which New Yorkers are known for, which stems from Italian Americans apparently. Again... I can't believe I'm using Gavin as a source but he's not wrong on this occasion.

Furthermore...

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He'd met and been interviewed by the guy on several occasions in the past.

Also , his "actions" in the clip are an almost exact reproduction of the manifestation of the journalists disability.

He knew EXACTLY what he was doing and why he was doing it.

To quote this again, this is simply incorrect. Have a look at the reporter in question in that Gavin McInnes video. Trump is seemingly mocking someone with cerebral palsy. The reporter has a disabled hand and nothing more. I was very curious about this incident when it happened as I simply could not believe someone would be so stupid as to openly mock a disabled person on stage while on a campaign trail, utter political suicide, turns out my inclinations were correct. While I abhor Trump, this like many other cases were spun by whatever agenda was being pushed.

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

Kinda. You added the part of pretending to be "retards". That's how right wingers spin it. I hate to reference Gavin McInnes of all people but he's put together a few clips of Trump doing the same action. It is pretty convincing that he's not mocking this reporter based on his disability.

https://youtu.be/gBpkMCa_D50?t=366

I think it's more accurate to say he mocked a reporter who happens to be disabled.

Then there's the normalisation of mocking disabilities. He's using a trope that people with disabilities are stupid, which is the only thing he is guilty of here imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCAF8HFPIWs

Gavin McInnes argued this is gesticulating which New Yorkers are known for, which stems from Italian Americans apparently. Again... I can't believe I'm using Gavin as a source but he's not wrong on this occasion.

Furthermore...



To quote this again, this is simply incorrect. Have a look at the reporter in question in that Gavin McInnes video. Trump is seemingly mocking someone with cerebral palsy. The reporter has a disabled hand and nothing more. I was very curious about this incident when it happened as I simply could not believe someone would be so stupid as to openly mock a disabled person on stage while on a campaign trail, utter political suicide, turns out my inclinations were correct. While I abhor Trump, this like many other cases were spun by whatever agenda was being pushed.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

There is a clear and logical line between Trump's actions and the specific reporter in question, leaving aside that no one should mock anyone else in such a way.

Nevertheless, when that connection is made, the line of defence is to say he can't remember, or that he never met him, or that it is a common thing for him to mock people in that way.

Seriously - does it not get tiring? Having to walk around behind him with a mop and bucket, trying to clean up the mess he made?

It is a frequent occurrence for his staff to make an appearance after him, with phrases like "he meant to say", or "what he means is...".

How often have other presidents in the past continuously behaved in such a manner which is, to put it at its most kind, "open to debate".

Surely, as president of the US, there is an inherent obligation to speak clearly, to not be ambiguous? His words matter.

I seem to recall his supporters proclaiming that he "tells it like it is". Well clearly that, amongst other points of admiration for this guy, is a steaming pile of...

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

I understand jobs are obviously important, but so is fiscal responsibility.

To make a crude analogy, if I have 15 credit cards which are maxed out, to people who don't know any better, I am doing extremely well. In reality, my personal economy is in the toilet.

The deficit has to be repaid. That will form part of the budget going forward for decades. Mismanagement may not hit the pockets of those alive currently, but it will hit their grandkids' pockets. It is irresponsible not to address the issue.

It is comparable to not taking Climate Change seriously. Might not effect us now, but it will long term and to not have regard to it is short sighted.

Incidentally, it will be amazing how important the deficit becomes to republicans when the Democrats are in the White House when they try to make tax cuts for the average person, or deal with healthcare.

I kind of can't disagree with most of what you say. Deficits and jobs are equally important, and both parties in the U.S. are responsible for the huge debt. Republicans arguably more so for cutting taxes while entering 2 wars in the 2000s. Those tax cuts were meant to be temporary and the Democrats should never have agreed to making them permanent if they really cared about the debt.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

This is exactly what I am talking about.

There is a clear and logical line between Trump's actions and the specific reporter in question, leaving aside that no one should mock anyone else in such a way.

Nevertheless, when that connection is made, the line of defence is to say he can't remember, or that he never met him, or that it is a common thing for him to mock people in that way.

Seriously - does it not get tiring? Having to walk around behind him with a mop and bucket, trying to clean up the mess he made?

It is a frequent occurrence for his staff to make an appearance after him, with phrases like "he meant to say", or "what he means is...".

How often have other presidents in the past continuously behaved in such a manner which is, to put it at its most kind, "open to debate".

Surely, as president of the US, there is an inherent obligation to speak clearly, to not be ambiguous? His words matter.

I seem to recall his supporters proclaiming that he "tells it like it is". Well clearly that, amongst other points of admiration for this guy, is a steaming pile of...

Not exactly sure what you were previously talking about as I barely read this thread, but in this specific instance.. Trump was misrepresented by his detractors. He wasn't mocking the reporter for being disabled. It does get tiring how horribly partisan the US media has become. How either side are straight-up lying and claiming the other side is doing the one doing the lying. One good thing to come out of this era is that people are questioning their sources more and more.

But I completely agree with everything else you say in this post. He's unfit to be the US president.