Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Leroy42 wrote: »

HC had a great chance to win the election. It was basically Comeys intervention that lost it for her. In such a tight race that was a major factor.

I think the operative there is "tight race", which begs the question as to why it was tight in the first place. That in itself is a damning indictment of her candidacy. And it's not just Comey's fault: If she hadn't gone off on the email server thing, there would have been nothing for Comey to investigate. Either way, spilled milk now.

To claim that Trump was never going to mention guns is accepting that no matter what he cannot lead. Being leader tends to put one in positions they never imagined. Faced with a new problem. And the best leaders, those that we remember and respect, are the ones that grasp the significance and force a change. Churchill in the UK for example.

Sadly Trump is not that man. Obama was but the GOP ensured that regardless of his bravery and willingness to work for change that they would stop him at everyturn. Trump seems to see his mission to row back on anything Obama tried and Obamas legacy would be mych greater had HC won.

Trump, when faced with the first real crisis (not directly linked to him) has sadly shown himself to be a coward and a yes man. The man who was going to 'Drain the swamp', tell it like it is, stand up for middle America has literally nothing to say when 59 of them are gunned down and 500+ injured.

Nothing. He has no ideas, no anger, no call to action. No red line has been crossed. The man who claimed he has was so shocked when little kids died in Syria that he fired multiple missles hasn't even called in the NRA to demand change.

Forgive me, but this seems to imply that there is only one viable course of action. That is not a position universally shared by the US population (or the population of this board). Personally, I have emailed my two congresscritters earlier this week and inquired as to if they have any interest at all in considering other points of focus such as prohibition on publicising such shooters or perhaps looking at the social or societal reasons these things seem to be happening in the US more than other firearms-holding countries. After all, the NRA can't object to those. Given that one is Kamala Harris, and the other Eric Swalwell, both (D-CA), I'm unconvinced that the response will do anything but focus on feelgood, superficial issue of the firearms. DiFi has wasted no time in copy/pasting a paragraph from her last attempt at a ban, submitting her new proposal which ignores the practical aspects of how the things work that she is trying to ban in the first place. But it's much easier to get superficial things passed when emotions are high, and when things settle down in the end, it's those of us on the receiving end that are trying to figure things out. As it is, I spent a half-hour today trying to figure out whether or not one of my rifles needs to be registered under the latest California regimen (And I still haven't come to a conclusion on the matter) because the folks passing the legislation have no clue what they're legislating about. And in the meantime, nothing is done as regards the most commonly used weapons in the US for murder or mass murder, precisely because they are (a) explicitly protected by the courts, and (b) also the most commonly legitimately held weapons. Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.