Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 33935
Just watched Trumps meeting with Leo (sidebar, is it even a meeting if it totalled 30 minutes, what could you possibly chat about?) and observing Varadker's clenched jaw and blank expression as Trump waffled on about Ireland's border wall was quite the sight of restraint. I presume Trump's flunkeys have stopped even trying to explain the bullet points of these scenarios because for a Leader of the Free World Trump is shockingly ignorant - and a terrible bluffer too. Brexit is a complex subject but the fact nobody could drill into the President something as simple as "they want to keep an open border 'cos it's best for peace & the economy" is kinda shocking in its own right.
I mean we're used to it, sure: between the 11 times it needed explaining you couldn't do a trade deal with Germany, or inability to listen to advisers NOT to tear up documents crossing the Resolute Desk, steering Trumps thought process must be like herding cats, but it's particularly bewildering when the subject turns to something closer to home.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »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.
I would respectfully point out that POTUS has lied 10,500 plus times so far. Rudy has said "truth isn't truth". KAK has suggested there are "alternative facts". It is not correct to say that one side is as bad as the other on that front. It simply is not.0 -
The great liar and trade negotiatoreverlast75 wrote: »I would respectfully point out that POTUS has lied 10,500 plus times so far. Rudy has said "truth isn't truth". KAK has suggested there are "alternative facts". It is not correct to say that one side is as bad as the other on that front. It simply is not.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jun/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-said-uk-americas-largest-trading-part/
"Donald Trump said the UK is America’s largest trading partner. It ranks 5th"
"We are your largest partner," Trump said June 4. "You’re our largest partner. A lot of people don’t know that. I was surprised. I made that statement yesterday, and a lot of people said, ‘Gee, I didn’t know that.’ But that’s the way it is."
I heard that at the time and assumed it must be true. Can I get innoculated against this stupidity propaganda?0 -
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.
”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.
America has two things. The most gun deaths of any civilised country outside a war zone and the largest number of arguments why having guns doesn't contribute to a large number of gun deaths.
Gun advocates have accepted that the death of innocent people, including school children, is a price they are willing to pay so some rednecks can dress in camouflage, drive around in pickups and pretend they are Rambo.
PS
The defence against the state argument, well I worked on a farm once. There was a pit where the runoff from 3000 cattle collected. And that isn't even close to the amount of absolute deluded manure that argument is.0 -
Stephen Colbert's monologue last night was a brilliant skit of Trump's visit to Ireland, but mostly, his Piers Morgan interview. Really enjoyed this....
##Off Topic Video removed##0 -
Advertisement
-
everlast75 wrote: »I would respectfully point out that POTUS has lied 10,500 plus times so far. Rudy has said "truth isn't truth". KAK has suggested there are "alternative facts". It is not correct to say that one side is as bad as the other on that front. It simply is not.
Yeah fair enough. I'm talking about media outlets rather than the administration itself. CNN vs Fox. ContraPoints vs Ben Shapiro. Recently, Carlos Maza vs Steven Crowder. They're all as bad as each other except slinging for the other team.0 -
He has to lie because he doesn't know the facts, does not read his briefs, does not read books, does not trust science, etc.
He is liar, and lies because he is deeply ignorant.
He gets away with it due to a lifetime of privilege and being surrounded by 'yes' men.0 -
He lies because his ego won't let him admit that he doesn't know, so he waffles. Take a look at the presser with Leo yesterday, there is not one single salient talking point or insight given by Trump during itStallingrad wrote: »He has to lie because he doesn't know the facts, does not read his briefs, does not read books, does not trust science, etc.
He is liar, and lies because he is deeply ignorant.
He gets away with it due to a lifetime of privilege and being surrounded by 'yes' men.0 -
duploelabs wrote: »Take a look at the presser with Leo yesterday, there is not one single salient talking point or insight given by Trump during it
It was unbelievable, he was so utterly clueless, all he had to fall back was the usual guff great this, and great that, my Friend the 'Prime Minister', the Wall. Yawn. Do his advisors even bother briefing him anymore?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33935
Stallingrad wrote: »
It was unbelievable, he was so utterly clueless, all he had to fall back was the usual guff great this, and great that, my Friend the 'Prime Minister', the Wall. Yawn. Do his advisors even bother briefing him anymore?
My genuine wonder is ; DOES he have any advisors anymore? We know there have been resignations and firings in record numbers and during the brief spate of insider gossip told of offices in disarray and little thorough work being done. I suspect staffers are just clock watching now having given up trying to get Trump to read reports; while Bolton, Miller et al don't strike me as fine-grain kind of people.
Serious question like. Is there any sense this administration is being properly managed? The biographies after this presidency are going to be endless and endlessly fascinating.0 -
Advertisement
-
My genuine wonder is ; DOES he have any advisors anymore? We know there have been resignations and firings in record numbers and during the brief spate of insider gossip told of offices in disarray and little thorough work being done. I suspect staffers are just clock watching now having given up trying to get Trump to read reports; while Bolton, Miller et al don't strike me as fine-grain kind of people.
Serious question like. Is there any sense this administration is being properly managed? The biographies after this presidency are going to be endless and endlessly fascinating.
I think the external administrative staff are going to be the most interesting tbh. Eg in terms of rationalising out countering his behaviour. He himself is pretty dull overall imho.0 -
Stephen Colbert's monologue last night was a brilliant skit of Trump's visit to Ireland, but mostly, his Piers Morgan interview. Really enjoyed this....
##Off Topic Video removed##
:D Seriously! All the Democrats have to do next year is show this and whoever is running for them is a shoo in. 0 -
Healthy dose of conformation bias there. You're basing the success of a decades old policy on an single incident from the other day.
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
Two points.
1) I note you removed the majority part of the logic trail.
2) I agree, the incident in Darwin is an aberration. By even US standards, it's an aberration. I certainly cannot think of any US cases where a parolee wearing an ankle monitor went off on a shooting spree. The incident was, however, topical as it happened on that day, much as the Virginia Beach shooting was topical, and does serve as a practical example of how reactive laws have their limits. For example, the weapon used is one of the estimated 4/5 of banned weapons which were not turned in following the passage of the law.
Here, have an Australian report in return.
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggeststhat in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
The difference is that the University of Melbourne report attempted to find a causative relationship, not just a correlation.
The National Institute of Health a few months ago explains the problem:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/
In the months following the public mass shooting on February 14, 2018, that killed 17 students and staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, many state legislatures have considered, and several have enacted, stricter gun legislation. Both supporters and opponents of stricter gun laws are looking toward the Australian experience to promote their policy positions. Supporters point to the sharp declines in firearm homicide and suicide rates in Australia since 1996, whereas opponents argue that the laws had little or no effect.
Given these conflicting positions, the rigorous evaluation of the impact of the Australian NFA by Gilmour et al. (p. 1511) is an important addition to the literature. Their analysis confirmed that there were significant declines in firearm homicides and suicides following the passage of the NFA; however, it also showed that after preexisting declines in firearm death rates and the changes in nonfirearm mortality rates that occurred subsequent to the passage of the agreement were taken into account, there was no statistically observable additional impact of the NFA. The data show a clear pattern of declining firearm homicide and suicide rates, but those declines started in the late 1980s.
The head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics postulated the possibility that changes in policing technique have had more of an effect than the gun buyback. After all, in common with most other countries, most crime is performed by handguns. You can still buy those in Australia. Indeed, there are now more privately owned guns in Australia than before 1996 ban.
You can have nine more studies here, co-located for your convenience.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.htmlI've no clue as to how a rational person can possibly argue that getting rid of guns WON'T reduce gun violence. It's like saying getting rid of cars WON'T reduce car crashes.
Yet, as just mentioned above, Australia has more guns than it had before, but their crime and suicide rates have gone down. Obviously reducing the number of guns (because it didn't happen) hasn't caused the reduction in firearms deaths. You certainly don't need a semi-auto rifle to kill yourself, and criminal activity almost never uses them anyway. Obviously something else is happening.
The other problem, even if there were a direct correlation, is 'can you get rid of enough to make a difference'. There are both legal and practical concerns in the US, before getting to the moral ones like "Must I be deprived of my ability to defend my home?". Example: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.
1). Building a 2,000 mile wall is a simple matter of will and money. There are no particular legal restrictions it barring routine issues of eminent domain and environmental impacts, and where it going is is visible from space. Not the greatest comparison.
2) What should this gun license look like and how would it be effective? After all, some States like Illinois require one (It's called the FOID https://www.ispfsb.com/ ). How's Chicago doing with their deaths by firearms these days? Bear in mind the requirements also to respect Federal and State constitutions.
3) Beyond the demonstrated futility of defining an assault weapon in law, we have evidence from Canada and two US States that compliance with even registration requirements is on the estimated order of less than 20%. Australia's buyback compliance rate was also around 20%. So what would be your suggested mechanism for finding the other 80%? I don't think you'll find much support in the US for the suspension of the 4th Amendment, for example.An insurgent militia can overthrow the US army? I thought they were the best army in the world
Did we win in Afghanistan and I missed it? It must be all those tanks and jets and satellite-guided missiles that the Taliban have. Insurgencies are notoriously difficult to beat militarily. Only one Western nation has really ever managed it. I do think the idea of a pitched insurgency in the US to be highly unlikely, of course. I'm not sure it's a great practical argument for private firearms ownership, but saying that it isn't one at all defies over a century of modern military history from the Philippines to Algeria to Ireland.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?
Actually, you can own fully functional tanks in the US. They're a little more restricted than just buying a rifle, but they're legal. Their main problem is cost. They are not cheap to run or feed, even second-line tanks like the M60 or Leopard 1. (Well, second-line by NATO standards). In the response to the Vegas shooting, the police asked a local tank owner just up the strip to bring out some of his APCs to help with the evacuation.0 -
Stallingrad wrote: »It was unbelievable, he was so utterly clueless, all he had to fall back was the usual guff great this, and great that, my Friend the 'Prime Minister', the Wall. Yawn. Do his advisors even bother briefing him anymore?
Why would they bother when he himself has said several times that he's his own best advisor? That's what you're dealing with there.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Two points.
1) I note you removed the majority part of the logic trail.
2) I agree, the incident in Darwin is an aberration. By even US standards, it's an aberration. I certainly cannot think of any US cases where a parolee wearing an ankle monitor went off on a shooting spree. The incident was, however, topical as it happened on that day, much as the Virginia Beach shooting was topical, and does serve as a practical example of how reactive laws have their limits. For example, the weapon used is one of the estimated 4/5 of banned weapons which were not turned in following the passage of the law.
Here, have an Australian report in return.
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggeststhat in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
The difference is that the University of Melbourne report attempted to find a causative relationship, not just a correlation.
The National Institute of Health a few months ago explains the problem:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/
In the months following the public mass shooting on February 14, 2018, that killed 17 students and staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, many state legislatures have considered, and several have enacted, stricter gun legislation. Both supporters and opponents of stricter gun laws are looking toward the Australian experience to promote their policy positions. Supporters point to the sharp declines in firearm homicide and suicide rates in Australia since 1996, whereas opponents argue that the laws had little or no effect.
Given these conflicting positions, the rigorous evaluation of the impact of the Australian NFA by Gilmour et al. (p. 1511) is an important addition to the literature. Their analysis confirmed that there were significant declines in firearm homicides and suicides following the passage of the NFA; however, it also showed that after preexisting declines in firearm death rates and the changes in nonfirearm mortality rates that occurred subsequent to the passage of the agreement were taken into account, there was no statistically observable additional impact of the NFA. The data show a clear pattern of declining firearm homicide and suicide rates, but those declines started in the late 1980s.
The head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics postulated the possibility that changes in policing technique have had more of an effect than the gun buyback. After all, in common with most other countries, most crime is performed by handguns. You can still buy those in Australia. Indeed, there are now more privately owned guns in Australia than before 1996 ban.
You can have nine more studies here, co-located for your convenience.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
Yet, as just mentioned above, Australia has more guns than it had before, but their crime and suicide rates have gone down. Obviously reducing the number of guns (because it didn't happen) hasn't caused the reduction in firearms deaths. You certainly don't need a semi-auto rifle to kill yourself, and criminal activity almost never uses them anyway. Obviously something else is happening.
The other problem, even if there were a direct correlation, is 'can you get rid of enough to make a difference'. There are both legal and practical concerns in the US, before getting to the moral ones like "Must I be deprived of my ability to defend my home?". Example:
1). Building a 2,000 mile wall is a simple matter of will and money. There are no particular legal restrictions it barring routine issues of eminent domain and environmental impacts, and where it going is is visible from space. Not the greatest comparison.
2) What should this gun license look like and how would it be effective? After all, some States like Illinois require one (It's called the FOID https://www.ispfsb.com/ ). How's Chicago doing with their deaths by firearms these days? Bear in mind the requirements also to respect Federal and State constitutions.
3) Beyond the demonstrated futility of defining an assault weapon in law, we have evidence from Canada and two US States that compliance with even registration requirements is on the estimated order of less than 20%. Australia's buyback compliance rate was also around 20%. So what would be your suggested mechanism for finding the other 80%? I don't think you'll find much support in the US for the suspension of the 4th Amendment, for example.
Did we win in Afghanistan and I missed it? It must be all those tanks and jets and satellite-guided missiles that the Taliban have. Insurgencies are notoriously difficult to beat militarily. Only one Western nation has really ever managed it. I do think the idea of a pitched insurgency in the US to be highly unlikely, of course. I'm not sure it's a great practical argument for private firearms ownership, but saying that it isn't one at all defies over a century of modern military history.
Actually, you can own fully functional tanks in the US. They're a little more restricted than just buying a rifle, but they're legal. Their main problem is cost. They are not cheap to run or feed, even second-line tanks like the M60 or Leopard 1. (Well, second-line by NATO standards). In the response to the Vegas shooting, the police asked a local tank owner just up the strip to bring out some of his APCs to help with the evacuation.
An insurgency in your own country is very different to invading a different one and beating rebels there.
Chicago is a terrible example. It borders regions with less gun control and easy access to them.
Really it isn't gun control and more a will of the people that protecting loves is more important than avoiding a few more forms to buy a gun. Realistically trying something proper should have an effect (something that costs money and will cost gun companies money, none of this teachers should be soldiers nonsense)
However you can argue till the cows come home. It is American kids learning shooter drills. Irish ones don't. Do something instead of arguments round in circles and needing complete and absolute proof that lives will be saved before risking a single gun.
Edit: is rate of gun ownership higher in Australia now? As the population is also higher. Still maybe just asking people to jump through a few hoops gets people to be more careful.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Two points.
1) I note you removed the majority part of the logic trail.
2) I agree, the incident in Darwin is an aberration. By even US standards, it's an aberration. I certainly cannot think of any US cases where a parolee wearing an ankle monitor went off on a shooting spree. The incident was, however, topical as it happened on that day, much as the Virginia Beach shooting was topical, and does serve as a practical example of how reactive laws have their limits. For example, the weapon used is one of the estimated 4/5 of banned weapons which were not turned in following the passage of the law.
Here, have an Australian report in return.
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggeststhat in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
The difference is that the University of Melbourne report attempted to find a causative relationship, not just a correlation.
The National Institute of Health a few months ago explains the problem:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/
In the months following the public mass shooting on February 14, 2018, that killed 17 students and staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, many state legislatures have considered, and several have enacted, stricter gun legislation. Both supporters and opponents of stricter gun laws are looking toward the Australian experience to promote their policy positions. Supporters point to the sharp declines in firearm homicide and suicide rates in Australia since 1996, whereas opponents argue that the laws had little or no effect.
Given these conflicting positions, the rigorous evaluation of the impact of the Australian NFA by Gilmour et al. (p. 1511) is an important addition to the literature. Their analysis confirmed that there were significant declines in firearm homicides and suicides following the passage of the NFA; however, it also showed that after preexisting declines in firearm death rates and the changes in nonfirearm mortality rates that occurred subsequent to the passage of the agreement were taken into account, there was no statistically observable additional impact of the NFA. The data show a clear pattern of declining firearm homicide and suicide rates, but those declines started in the late 1980s.
The head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics postulated the possibility that changes in policing technique have had more of an effect than the gun buyback. After all, in common with most other countries, most crime is performed by handguns. You can still buy those in Australia. Indeed, there are now more privately owned guns in Australia than before 1996 ban.
You can have nine more studies here, co-located for your convenience.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
Yet, as just mentioned above, Australia has more guns than it had before, but their crime and suicide rates have gone down. Obviously reducing the number of guns (because it didn't happen) hasn't caused the reduction in firearms deaths. You certainly don't need a semi-auto rifle to kill yourself, and criminal activity almost never uses them anyway. Obviously something else is happening.
The other problem, even if there were a direct correlation, is 'can you get rid of enough to make a difference'. There are both legal and practical concerns in the US, before getting to the moral ones like "Must I be deprived of my ability to defend my home?". Example:
1). Building a 2,000 mile wall is a simple matter of will and money. There are no particular legal restrictions it barring routine issues of eminent domain and environmental impacts, and where it going is is visible from space. Not the greatest comparison.
2) What should this gun license look like and how would it be effective? After all, some States like Illinois require one (It's called the FOID https://www.ispfsb.com/ ). How's Chicago doing with their deaths by firearms these days? Bear in mind the requirements also to respect Federal and State constitutions.
3) Beyond the demonstrated futility of defining an assault weapon in law, we have evidence from Canada and two US States that compliance with even registration requirements is on the estimated order of less than 20%. Australia's buyback compliance rate was also around 20%. So what would be your suggested mechanism for finding the other 80%? I don't think you'll find much support in the US for the suspension of the 4th Amendment, for example.
Did we win in Afghanistan and I missed it? It must be all those tanks and jets and satellite-guided missiles that the Taliban have. Insurgencies are notoriously difficult to beat militarily. Only one Western nation has really ever managed it. I do think the idea of a pitched insurgency in the US to be highly unlikely, of course. I'm not sure it's a great practical argument for private firearms ownership, but saying that it isn't one at all defies over a century of modern military history from the Philippines to Algeria to Ireland.
Actually, you can own fully functional tanks in the US. They're a little more restricted than just buying a rifle, but they're legal. Their main problem is cost. They are not cheap to run or feed, even second-line tanks like the M60 or Leopard 1. (Well, second-line by NATO standards). In the response to the Vegas shooting, the police asked a local tank owner just up the strip to bring out some of his APCs to help with the evacuation.
Yes Chicago has some strong gun control laws but because it borders onto Northwest Indiana where there is little gun control there is not much Illinois and the Chicago area in particular can do to stop the guns flowing across the state border.0 -
Been reading and following this thread for a long time. Insightful and informative.
Yet we’re back to arguing guns aren’t a problem and denying he insulted the disabled reporter. All at once. Really lads. Just ignore them if they’re baiting so obviously.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Mod Note
It should go without saying that personal attacks aren't acceptable on this forum. Debate the issues please. Play the ball, not the man.
Thank you.0 -
Stop moaning ffs wrote: »Been reading and following this thread for a long time. Insightful and informative.
Yet we’re back to arguing guns aren’t a problem and denying he insulted the disabled reporter. All at once. Really lads. Just ignore them if they’re baiting so obviously.
Yeah your right best left alone. As I often say when someone starts a so called debate about gun control in the US. There is no debate to be had. Nobody anywhere in the developed world has a gun problem even close to the US. So when everyone else seems to have it figured out with gun control then your the problem.
The fact that the Americans are ok with their own children been gunned down again and again never mind adults being killed says so much about who their are and their glorification of violence. Obviously it is not all Americans but it is certainly not a small minority either. Just like the fact that they have such a disgusting and dangerous demagogue as their president does not mean all Americans are like that but again the fact is it is not a small minority a very large chuck on Americans are like their president.0 -
An insurgency in your own country is very different to invading a different one and beating rebels there.
Chicago is a terrible example. It borders regions with less gun control and easy access to them.
Really it isn't gun control and more a will of the people that protecting loves is more important than avoiding a few more forms to buy a gun. Realistically trying something proper should have an effect (something that costs money and will cost gun companies money, none of this teachers should be soldiers nonsense)
However you can argue till the cows come home. It is American kids learning shooter drills. Irish ones don't. Do something instead of arguments round in circles and needing complete and absolute proof that lives will be saved before risking a single gun.
Edit: is rate of gun ownership higher in Australia now? As the population is also higher. Still maybe just asking people to jump through a few hoops gets people to be more careful.
In the US, there are 120 guns per 100 citizens. In Australia, there are 14 guns per 100 citizens. So the US has 8.5 times more guns than Australia. But the number of guns has nothing to do with the number of people dying by gunshot. Nothing at all at all.0 -
Advertisement
-
Stephen Colbert's monologue last night was a brilliant skit of Trump's visit to Ireland, but mostly, his Piers Morgan interview. Really enjoyed this....
##Off Topic Video removed##
How the hell is a video mocking Trump's performance "off topic" in a thread entitled "Donald Trump presidency discussion" :eek:0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=v6TZaICF1Yg
Trump did an interview with Fox News criticising Muller, Pelosi and the democrats, in front of a graveyard full of dead U.S. troops. Very bad optics.... did no one tell him how disrespectful this looks ? A draft dodger whinging in front of the resting place of all these solders who died for their country..... very poor by the president0 -
EltonJohn69 wrote: »https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=v6TZaICF1Yg
Trump did an interview with Fox News criticising Muller, Pelosi and the democrats, in front of a graveyard full of dead U.S. troops. Very bad optics.... did no one tell him how disrespectful this looks ? A draft dodger whinging in front of the resting place of all these solders who died for their country..... very poor by the president
Just wait until the patriotic, army loving Republicans see that! Trump is in real trouble.....0 -
EltonJohn69 wrote: »https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=v6TZaICF1Yg
Trump did an interview with Fox News criticising Muller, Pelosi and the democrats, in front of a graveyard full of dead U.S. troops. Very bad optics.... did no one tell him how disrespectful this looks ? A draft dodger whinging in front of the resting place of all these solders who died for their country..... very poor by the president
He doesn't care about any of that. The only thing that matters to him is that he's the centre of attention, as per usual. His comments to Varadkar about the border and wall were absolutely cringeworthy.0 -
EltonJohn69 wrote: »https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=v6TZaICF1Yg
Trump did an interview with Fox News criticising Muller, Pelosi and the democrats, in front of a graveyard full of dead U.S. troops. Very bad optics.... did no one tell him how disrespectful this looks ? A draft dodger whinging in front of the resting place of all these solders who died for their country..... very poor by the president
And just to add insult to injury, he kept the other dignitaries, including veterans waiting while Laura Ingraham did her propaganda piece to camera. They waited for 15 minutes while he was delayed by her trying to 'scoop' an interview.0 -
TomOnBoard wrote: »And just to add insult to injury, he kept the other dignitaries, including veterans waiting while Laura Ingraham did her propaganda piece to camera. They waited for 15 minute's while he was delayed by her trying to 'scoop' an interview.
Why is this acceptable to his supporters who supposedly adored him for being a man of the people and not one of the elite?
Seems like what they really mean by that, and what they most like about him, is that he is a boor.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33935
I think at this stage into the presidency it's clear enough that optics don't matter one jot with this administration. The number of outward ghastly gaffs should be enough to sink 5 other politicians' careers yet here we are. The guy can pick a fight with a bereaved 5 star family and walk away clean (though I'd say the fact the Khans were Muslim absolutely counted for Trump, I remember the hatchet jobs on the wife). I guess the secret is to basically act like everything is normal and carry on like everyone else is insane - or in the case of Trump, a lier and purveyor of "fake news". And surround yourself with propagandists who go full Glorious Leader on the asinine behaviour.0 -
I mean as long as he wasn't kneeling everything is ok right?0
-
-
Advertisement
-
5% tariff on all imports from Mexico, until they take action on illegal immigration. Not that the “action” is clearly defined.
Just another piece of nonsense to whip up the base and take attention away from his obstruction of justice troubles. It’s so transparent at this stage it’s almost comical.
Looks like that "nonsense" might have been somewhat effective. Watch this space... be interesting to see how the lib dems spin it though.
https://twitter.com/RWhelanWSJ/status/11367224904520089630
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement