Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cornish Steve

Mass shootings in America

Recommended Posts

Brilliant post Steve, it’s all too tragic.

Hopes and prayers haven’t worked yet. I don’t see any sign of things changing. We’re these two the 247 & 248 time this year? It’s not ok that these things keep happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep but NRA and repubs think it's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue.  oh wait they wont' help pass mental health issue bills either they are against them, freedom and all that.  this country is well and truly fucked and greedy capitalism and money are the only things to blame.  doing right has been pushed down to 10th most important thing sadly, no one cares anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gun is an inanimate object, that will just sit there forever, and never "do" anything. It takes an individual to make a series of decisions and actions to make the gun "do" anything. To simply blame the guns is so simplistic and short-sighted, it's absurd - but the left side will immediately call out the gun.

That being said, the right will defend the right of guns, no matter how lax the laws are, or how excessive the firepower is, to a fault.

Even tho I am in a big time gun-toting redder-than-hell state where hunting is a rite of passage for many, I don't own a gun. I don't want a gun, and I don't feel like I need a gun. I'm not, and have never been a member of the NRA . I've never been hunting, shot a deer or bird, and have no interest in doing so. I do lean to the right as most of you know. I am a bit leery of the federal government passing laws that restrict rights or expand entitlements, but in my case, it comes more  from a limited government philosophy than a love of guns or ownership. But, I do not see ANY reason whatsoever why a private citizen should be allowed to buy, sell or own military firepower. I am not anti-gun laws.

Gun control laws have mixed success. Some places have strong gun laws, and high gun crime. Some have strong gun laws and low gun crime. I don't think knee-jerk legislation is the answer - to anything really. One serious problem is different states have very different laws. New York has super strict laws, so their guns come from states with weaker laws, ditto California - path of least resistance and such. So basically, it will have to be a federal law so the same restrictions or protections apply to Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, New Mexico and New Jersey. But we have 635 children in Washington that are so petty and parochial, that I have serious concerns of their ability to actually put their politics aside and actually do something meaningful. 

We have passed laws that say you can't murder people. That hasn't stopped it. We have passed laws that make cocaine and heroin illegal, but yet, it still exists. Simply passing laws and criminalizing something make the public feel safer and gives politicians something to crow about, but attacking the symptom does shit all to address the cause. Signing a piece of paper isn't a silver bullet that solves everything.

 

Again, pass some common sense laws, I am truly ALL for that - easier said than done, but still. But.....

Why the hell is this happening more and more? Why after 250 years of gun rights in this country is this suddenly becoming an epidemic? What in the fuck in going on in our society, in our homes, in our schools...is it mental health, is it a general disregard for others, is it the vitriol that now dominates national politics, the angst social media fosters...where the hell are these kids parents?  What the hell is causing or allowing these young men to believe that taking the life of random innocent strangers is ok? This is even MORE important to address to me. Laws will have some (but limited IMO) impact, but we have to try to identify and address the behavior of what breeds this crap. It's a complex problem, and it's heartbreaking. 

 

Cornish Steve, I only take exception to one thing in your original post. To take the racism of the shooter, and put it on law enforcement? You really think that that in all that chaos and adrenaline the cops went "Woah - easy fellas, he's a white, guy don't shot him!!"  Can you guess the color of the guy in Dayton the cops put down? Or do you think maybe it was just a black or Hispanic cop that shot him?  Red herring to me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Even tho I am in a big time gun-toting redder-than-hell state where hunting is a rite of passage for many, I don't own a gun. I don't want a gun, and I don't feel like I need a gun. I'm not, and have never been a member of the NRA . I've never been hunting, shot a deer or bird, and have no interest in doing so. I do lean to the right as most of you know. I am a bit leery of the federal government passing laws that restrict rights or expand entitlements, but in my case, it comes more  from a limited government philosophy than a love of guns or ownership. But, I do not see ANY reason whatsoever why a private citizen should be n allowed to buy, sell or own military firepower. I am not anti-gun laws.

This right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

A gun is an inanimate object, that will just sit there forever, and never "do" anything. It takes an individual to make a series of decisions and actions to make the gun "do" anything. To simply blame the guns is so simplistic and short-sighted, it's absurd -

 

except that elsewhere in the world where they have been banned these events happen once a decade not once a week.  you can call it whatever you'd like but effective is what i call it.

 

also mustard gas is an inantimate object, didn't stop the nations (including US) from banning it due to deaths and side effects.  see also various other poisons and biological weapons, drugs (heroin, fentanyl), etc.  plenty of inantimate objects are banned due to what happens when someone uses them.  your argument is moot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite sure how Trump squares this one up; "Mental illness pulls the trigger, not guns" and then proposes laws that ensure those who commit these crimes. "...face the death penalty....quickly..".

It could be argued fairly strongly I think that anyone who goes on the rampage and kills a lot of people is not quite right mental health wise couldn't it? Follows for me that he's proposing killing ill people.

Amazed to find having googled "Insanity defence" that in four states (Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas) such a thing doesn't even exist. That's barbaric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MikeO said:

Not quite sure how Trump squares this one up; "Mental illness pulls the trigger, not guns" and then proposes laws that ensure those who commit these crimes. "...face the death penalty....quickly..".

It could be argued fairly strongly I think that anyone who goes on the rampage and kills a lot of people is not quite right mental health wise couldn't it? Follows for me that he's proposing killing ill people.

Amazed to find having googled "Insanity defence" that in four states (Idaho, Montana, Utah and Kansas) such a thing doesn't even exist. That's barbaric.

You could argue that he is saying (at least with the Texas shooting which is being called a domestic terrorist incident by white supremacists) that supporting white supremacist views is suffering from mental health issues, which I would agree with. Although this would also, given his previous statements include Trump himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ghoat said:

A gun is an inanimate object, that will just sit there forever, and never "do" anything. It takes an individual to make a series of decisions and actions to make the gun "do" anything. To simply blame the guns is so simplistic and short-sighted, it's absurd - but the left side will immediately call out the gun.

 

Your right, guns don,t kill people, people kill people.

Guns make it allot easier though.

How many people can a person who has had firearms training from being a member of a club, or having lessons, shoot using a fully automatic rife with  30 round mag's kill in 5 minutes?

The answer is too many. 

Why 5 minutes, that's a reasonable response time. 

Simple things like mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases, red flagging people with extreme views, a history of violence / gun enabled crime or certain mental health conditions, and banning full auto conversion kits,  extended mags and the carrying of concealed weapons would help.

In the longer term banning military grade weapons like assault rifles, unless they are stored at registered gun clubs or made single fire with 10 round clips, reducing the caliber of weapons that can be sold would all make a massive difference. 

You can never stop gun crime, especially in a country with a history and tradition of gun ownership, what you can do is look to limit the impact a shooter can have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would support all of those things. I think the red flagging of people with extreme views is a slippery slope however - because it's subjective. Theoretically I actually completely agree with it, but in practice it's a subjective decision made by someone, it starts to enter in the area of thought police and is a very slippy slope.

Regardless, an overhaul of gun policy to set laws that are consistent nationwide I feel is reasonable and needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ghoat said:

I would support all of those things. I think the red flagging of people with extreme views is a slippery slope however - because it's subjective. Theoretically I actually completely agree with it, but in practice it's a subjective decision made by someone, it starts to enter in the area of thought police and is a very slippy slope.

Regardless, an overhaul of gun policy to set laws that are consistent nationwide I feel is reasonable and needed.

Your right it is subjective, but allot of laws are, threats to kill, harassment, and laws that require Police to prove criminal intent for example.

I would imagine that Red flagging would have to have the right of appeal (the weapons should remain with authorities while the appeal is heard).

It would also have to be re-applied for by authorities after a set period of time, so it may not be permanent, and may only be limited to certain types of weapons. 

Every system needs checks and balances, but ultimately it is balancing the rights of the individual to hold weapons against societies right to say what is an acceptable level of risk. Never going to be perfect but has to be tried.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

The second amendment was intended to ensure a well regulated militia so that the population could overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary. 

Quite an odd concept in a democratic republic of 50 states, makes me think the collective rather than individual theory was the way it was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chach said:

Quite an odd concept in a democratic republic of 50 states, makes me think the collective rather than individual theory was the way it was intended.

Well, remember that we had just broken away from what we perceived to be a tyrannical government. The greatest strength of the constitution, in my opinion, is that it attempts to set up a government that protects people from government. It recognizes that power often corrupts and so puts in safeguards to try and ensure that no branch wields too much power. The most obvious of these safeguards is our system of checks and balances but I would argue that the second amendment is another. It was intended to be a protection against too much power residing with the military. Unfortunately technological advancement has made this balance untenable and the amendment has been interpreted so broadly that the original intent is mostly ignored. The only people who adhere to the original intent are those you find holed up in cabins somewhere writing anarchist manifestos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/08/2019 at 09:33, markjazzbassist said:

yep but NRA and repubs think it's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue.  oh wait they wont' help pass mental health issue bills either they are against them, freedom and all that.  this country is well and truly fucked and greedy capitalism and money are the only things to blame.  doing right has been pushed down to 10th most important thing sadly, no one cares anymore.

Mental health is the problem? Then why this?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/28/trump-sign-bill-blocking-obama-gun-rule/98484106/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Steve you must have missed the dripping sarcasm in my post.  The republicans will fight at all costs to keep guns because they are backed so heavily financially by the NRA.  It’s their sugar daddy.  They use the guise of mental health to try and skirt the issue.  Some democrats are backed by the NRA as well but nowhere near the amount of republicans as well.  I think they should ban all that lobbying and special interest stuff myself but the greedy fat cats love that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

Steve you must have missed the dripping sarcasm in my post.  The republicans will fight at all costs to keep guns because they are backed so heavily financially by the NRA.  It’s their sugar daddy.  They use the guise of mental health to try and skirt the issue.  Some democrats are backed by the NRA as well but nowhere near the amount of republicans as well.  I think they should ban all that lobbying and special interest stuff myself but the greedy fat cats love that money.

Lobbying, in theory, is perfectly reasonable. You have a group who believes in a certain cause or has a particular ideology and they organize to make their position known to those in power and vote for those who share their views. The problem comes from the money and power some of these groups control. The NRA, as an example, supports positions on guns that even their own members do not. Their influence and their views are in conflict with what the majority of the country wants and, I'd argue, with the best interests of the nation. Same for something like the tobacco lobby which wielded huge influence and as a result contributed to untold deaths for decades. The issue though is that there isn't really a good way to stop them in my opinion. Sure, you could limit political donations from these groups but I don't see that as a real fix. There would be nothing to prevent an organization from strongly encouraging it's members to give to certain candidates who would do their bidding. No different than how a particular religious denomination can encourage it's members to vote a certain way. This scenario might be slightly more agreeable because it's up to the individual ultimately but powerful lobbies and special interest groups would continue to persist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Sparty's point, the framers of the US Constitution were a bit paranoid about the central governments powers. A significant portion of the Constitution is restrictions on the power of the central government with various checks and balances, putting the military under elected civilian authority and the rights of states. Whatever was not specifically granted, or prohibited within the Constitution fell to the states. 

Generally speaking you had a mixture of lay people and thinkers of the day that had the opportunity to create what they considered an ideal country or an ideal system of government. The intent was for people to be governed by the laws of the state they chose to live in, and for the states to send their own elected representatives to the two legislative bodies  for a few days, hash out laws that affected the Union, and then go back home to their jobs and let the states take care of the rest. 

For 13 States and 2-3 million people it worked. Almost 250 years later, it's 50 states, 300+ million people and the document still works with little changes. There have only been 27 amendments in all that time, and 10 of those (Bill of Rights) included in the original Constitution so I don't really know why they count as amendments. And the first 10 were largely restricting the power of the federal government, and granting citizens protection from prosecution. I guess it will be fair to say the second amendment falls under both of those categories.

Regardless there have only been 17 actual changes since the Constitution was adopted, and several of those apply procedures for Congress. one said liquors illegal, and another one said nevermind no it's not.

There are probably maybe 10 "big" amendments, that range from the abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote, voting age etc. It's not perfect and there have been some changes and interpretations and powers, but the framers did a pretty damn good job I'm creating something out of thin air that has had that few substantial changes over time.

And For better or worse, Americans tend to get a bit skeptical when you seriously talk about changes to the Constitution. It has worked stunningly well over the test of time, and there is a fear of making a substantial change within it that upsets any of the balances/checks of power or limits the rights of individuals or states that are expressly provided.

I do find it a little humorous or ironic that we revere the Framers/Founder as some of the greatest Americans history... Without stopping to realize most of them were first generation born in this country to ex-pats/colonists.... So it was pretty much a collection of very forward thinking, wise Brits who wrote it 🤣

By comparison, my State Constitution (Alabama) is only 117 years old, but written by crooked redneck lawyers. It's more than twice as long as any constitution in the world, over 40 times longer than the US Constitution, and has nine hundred and twenty fucking eight Amendment. 

And back on topic, amendment or not, I can't see any reason for a 21 year old to be able to buy an AK-47 or handgun with a 30 round clip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

To Sparty's point, the framers of the US Constitution were a bit paranoid about the central governments powers. A significant portion of the Constitution is restrictions on the power of the central government with various checks and balances, putting the military under elected civilian authority and the rights of states. Whatever was not specifically granted, or prohibited within the Constitution fell to the states. 

Generally speaking you had a mixture of lay people and thinkers of the day that had the opportunity to create what they considered an ideal country or an ideal system of government. The intent was for people to be governed by the laws of the state they chose to live in, and for the states to send their own elected representatives to the two legislative bodies  for a few days, hash out laws that affected the Union, and then go back home to their jobs and let the states take care of the rest. 

For 13 States and 2-3 million people it worked. Almost 250 years later, it's 50 states, 300+ million people and the document still works with little changes. There have only been 27 amendments in all that time, and 10 of those (Bill of Rights) included in the original Constitution so I don't really know why they count as amendments. And the first 10 were largely restricting the power of the federal government, and granting citizens protection from prosecution. I guess it will be fair to say the second amendment falls under both of those categories.

Regardless there have only been 17 actual changes since the Constitution was adopted, and several of those apply procedures for Congress. one said liquors illegal, and another one said nevermind no it's not.

There are probably maybe 10 "big" amendments, that range from the abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote, voting age etc. It's not perfect and there have been some changes and interpretations and powers, but the framers did a pretty damn good job I'm creating something out of thin air that has had that few substantial changes over time.

And For better or worse, Americans tend to get a bit skeptical when you seriously talk about changes to the Constitution. It has worked stunningly well over the test of time, and there is a fear of making a substantial change within it that upsets any of the balances/checks of power or limits the rights of individuals or states that are expressly provided.

I do find it a little humorous or ironic that we revere the Framers/Founder as some of the greatest Americans history... Without stopping to realize most of them were first generation born in this country to ex-pats/colonists.... So it was pretty much a collection of very forward thinking, wise Brits who wrote it 🤣

By comparison, my State Constitution (Alabama) is only 117 years old, but written by crooked redneck lawyers. It's more than twice as long as any constitution in the world, over 40 times longer than the US Constitution, and has nine hundred and twenty fucking eight Amendment. 

And back on topic, amendment or not, I can't see any reason for a 21 year old to be able to buy an AK-47 or handgun with a 30 round clip

Well said. I think it's important to both recognize the success of the document and it's limitations. By doing so it will hopefully appear to people as less of a religious text and more of the insightful but changeable framework it was meant to be. One example I like to cite to people who are a bit dogmatic about the Constitution is the slavery exception in the 13th amendment. If you're convicted of a crime the government is perfectly allowed to force your unpaid labor and you are essentially a slave of the state. The consequences of this exception have directly resulted in a lot of the problems we have with our prison population to this day. Also, we still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment which I bet would surprise a lot of people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Well said. I think it's important to both recognize the success of the document and it's limitations. By doing so it will hopefully appear to people as less of a religious text and more of the insightful but changeable framework it was meant to be. One example I like to cite to people who are a bit dogmatic about the Constitution is the slavery exception in the 13th amendment. If you're convicted of a crime the government is perfectly allowed to force your unpaid labor and you are essentially a slave of the state. The consequences of this exception have directly resulted in a lot of the problems we have with our prison population to this day. Also, we still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment which I bet would surprise a lot of people. 

1. I've not heard that brought up vis-a-vis the 13th, 'tis interesting. I'm guessing it has survived legal challenges because the courts see the "pay" as going to offset the cost to the taxpayers of incarceration. I think I have heard $30k used as an average cost per inmate per year. If you assumed 20% of pay to taxes, that would mean a gross of $37,500. If based on a 2080hr work year, they are getting "credit" for $18 per hour - decent for (mostly) unskilled labor?

2. Is this not covered under an umbrella from another amendment/law? What is the consequences of not having it/what would having it address? Confessing total ignorance on this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

1. I've not heard that brought up vis-a-vis the 13th, 'tis interesting. I'm guessing it has survived legal challenges because the courts see the "pay" as going to offset the cost to the taxpayers of incarceration. I think I have heard $30k used as an average cost per inmate per year. If you assumed 20% of pay to taxes, that would mean a gross of $37,500. If based on a 2080hr work year, they are getting "credit" for $18 per hour - decent for (mostly) unskilled labor?

2. Is this not covered under an umbrella from another amendment/law? What is the consequences of not having it/what would having it address? Confessing total ignorance on this!

1. The prison labor system we have is pretty messed up for a variety of reasons. I expect it’s not been challenged because there is nothing to challenge. You can’t say something is unconstitutional if it’s explicitly accounted for in an amendment. It is, quite literally, constitutional.

2. You are correct that their are various protections in place within other laws. The ERA itself has an interesting history. Cruised through Congress in the 60’s or 70’s but fell just short of the 38 states that needed to ratify largely due to the work of one woman who made it her life’s mission to oppose it. If you’re familiar with John Oliver’s show on HBO he does an excellent (and amusing) summary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not familiar with him, the cost of adding HBO is far more than my britbox subscription and I have more TV that I can watch anyway. 

I did do a quick scan over the amendments before I posted previously so I didn't say something factually stupid. When I did I noticed something interesting on the 27th amendment - I forget that one, I guess because when I grew up in school they were 26 amendments. it was ratified in 1992 and basically says when Congress votes themselves a raise it doesn't take effect until the next session. So in theory you're not voting yourself a raise unless you get reelected. The interesting thing to me was it was proposed in 1789, along with 10 others that became the Bill of Rights. That it took 202 years to ratify that is somewhat embarrassing.

But....A 19 year old sophomore at the University of Texas wrote a paper about it, claiming it could still be ratified. He got a "C". He was pissed off about the grade, and managed to launch a national campaign bringing attention to it and it was indeed ratified. That is actually a pretty cool story that I never knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

Not familiar with him, the cost of adding HBO is far more than my britbox subscription and I have more TV that I can watch anyway. 

I did do a quick scan over the amendments before I posted previously so I didn't say something factually stupid. When I did I noticed something interesting on the 27th amendment - I forget that one, I guess because when I grew up in school they were 26 amendments. it was ratified in 1992 and basically says when Congress votes themselves a raise it doesn't take effect until the next session. So in theory you're not voting yourself a raise unless you get reelected. The interesting thing to me was it was proposed in 1789, along with 10 others that became the Bill of Rights. That it took 202 years to ratify that is somewhat embarrassing.

But....A 19 year old sophomore at the University of Texas wrote a paper about it, claiming it could still be ratified. He got a "C". He was pissed off about the grade, and managed to launch a national campaign bringing attention to it and it was indeed ratified. That is actually a pretty cool story that I never knew.

That's very interesting. I believe the ERA is still open for ratification and if I'm not mistaken i think they are up to 37 states and need only 1 more. Looking at you, Alabama. Haha, I kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Interesting. I believe the ERA is still open for ratification and if I'm not mistaken i think they are up to 37 states and only 1 more. Looking at you, Alabama. Haha, I kid.

It's closed - but could always be reopened with an extension. But I guess with EEOC, it's a moot point.

Looking at Alabama, WTF? First you came for the front seats on the bus, then the water fountains, that whole voting thing...enough, we've done our part! (That would be a lot funnier if that slogan alone wasn't enough to get me elected county commissioner in some of the NE rural counties between Birmingham and Huntsville or NW between Birmingham and Starkvagas)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

It's closed - but could always be reopened with an extension. But I guess with EEOC, it's a moot point.

Looking at Alabama, WTF? First you came for the front seats on the bus, then the water fountains, that whole voting thing...enough, we've done our part! (That would be a lot funnier if that slogan alone wasn't enough to get me elected county commissioner in some of the NE rural counties between Birmingham and Huntsville or NW between Birmingham and Starkvagas)

 

it's amazing how little qualification you need for some locally elected positions. I was watching something on the problems we have with coroners/medical examiners in this country that was pretty disturbing. In one case the sheriff of a town was also the coroner and routinely didn't bother to do autopsies when a death involved an officer. Apparently, in most places you just have to be 18 with no felonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol yeah, bu that;s just  the Sheriff, consider this....

 

"Hey, I'd like to be, um, like president of the America"

"OK, qualifications - have you ever been the president of a country before?"

"Um, no"

"World leaders - are you friends with any, speak a foreign language maybe?"

"Sorta, I've seen Spanglish twice"

"Ok, well, have you ever been in charge of a military? Nuclear subs, stealth bombers, battle tanks, launch codes for MIRV's and such?"

"Um, what?"

"Are you 35, born in America, no felonies?"

"yeah"

"Fuck yeah dude, you're qualified to lead the free world, sign here!"

"Sweet"

 

Makes sheriff requirements seems reasonable, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

lol yeah, bu that;s just  the Sheriff, consider this....

 

"Hey, I'd like to be, um, like president of the America"

"OK, qualifications - have you ever been the president of a country before?"

"Um, no"

"World leaders - are you friends with any, speak a foreign language maybe?"

"Sorta, I've seen Spanglish twice"

"Ok, well, have you ever been in charge of a military? Nuclear subs, stealth bombers, battle tanks, launch codes for MIRV's and such?"

"Um, what?"

"Are you 35, born in America, no felonies?"

"yeah"

"Fuck yeah dude, you're qualified to lead the free world, sign here!"

"Sweet"

 

Makes sheriff requirements seems reasonable, no?

Fair point. Luckily we have a system where any presidential candidates are thoroughly vetted by their competitors and by the media. If  they are found to be unqualified for the job of president they have no chance at all to win an election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Fair point. Luckily we have a system where any presidential candidates are thoroughly vetted by their competitors and by the media. If  they are found to be unqualified for the job of president they have no chance at all to win an election.

Are you aware of our current president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm really not sure anyone is qualified job, it is so big and encompassing, and it's 24/7 at any given time. A former vice-president is probably the closest thing to a "qualified" candidate. A damn community organizer, a brash New York businessman/reality TV host, the son of a wealthy Texan/CIA spook (but governor of a large state) and the son of a bootlegger who is governor of a small Southern State. 

That's our last four presidents, and regardless of what they did and how well they did/didn't do it, none of those resumes even remotely prepare them for the responsibilities and enormity of that job. 

"Leader of the Free World" is in my opinion, a bit of an overstatement, but there is some truth to it. Who the hell has that ego to think they have the experience to be qualified for that? (Yes it's rhetorical)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

Honestly, I'm really not sure anyone is qualified job, it is so big and encompassing, and it's 24/7 at any given time. A former vice-president is probably the closest thing to a "qualified" candidate. A damn community organizer, a brash New York businessman/reality TV host, the son of a wealthy Texan/CIA spook (but governor of a large state) and the son of a bootlegger who is governor of a small Southern State. 

That's our last four presidents, and regardless of what they did and how well they did/didn't do it, none of those resumes even remotely prepare them for the responsibilities and enormity of that job. 

"Leader of the Free World" is in my opinion, a bit of an overstatement, but there is some truth to it. Who the hell has that ego to think they have the experience to be qualified for that? (Yes it's rhetorical)

You're not wrong. The job is being able to process information from (presumably) expert sources and making the best decisions you can. Of course that system breaks down if you ignore their information and their advice and decide to just wing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

You're not wrong. The job is being able to process information from (presumably) expert sources and making the best decisions you can. Of course that system breaks down if you ignore their information and their advice and decide to just wing it.

100% this. A good president is one that considers all information received and makes the best possible decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

100% this. A good president is one that considers all information received and makes the best possible decision.

I don’t want to make this completely about Trump but I suppose some mention is unavoidable. Of all the things I find alarming about him one of the most disturbing for me  is that he simply doesn’t like to read. It’s been confirmed on many occasions that intelligence  reports have to be boiled down to a single page in many cases with lots of visuals and he still gets bored and often doesn’t pay attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpartyBlue said:

I don’t want to make this completely about Trump but I suppose some mention is unavoidable. Of all the things I find alarming about him one of the most disturbing for me  is that he simply doesn’t like to read. It’s been confirmed on many occasions that intelligence  reports have to be boiled down to a single page in many cases with lots of visuals and he still gets bored and often doesn’t pay attention. 

I've read the same. It's very alarming that we have a President that doesn't like to read. That tells me he doesn't like get into the details and is easily persuaded by the voices in his ears, but then again he does what he wants regardless of advice. I really don't understand him as president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

I don’t want to make this completely about Trump but I suppose some mention is unavoidable. Of all the things I find alarming about him one of the most disturbing for me  is that he simply doesn’t like to read. It’s been confirmed on many occasions that intelligence  reports have to be boiled down to a single page in many cases with lots of visuals and he still gets bored and often doesn’t pay attention. 

Look Sparty, if the man can run the whole county 140 characters at a time, then why should a briefing be any longer? I kid, I kid!

Honestly, given his background, I'd be surprised of much different - that's a CEO mentality.  If I have questions or need more info, I'll ask them. Broadly speaking, I'm ok with that - and that's not a defense of Trump per se, every president I remember has been accused of that. That was "reported" often about Clinton. But he also had an idiot savant-like memory when it came to names and places, he likely didn't need info repeatedly drilled and got a bit impatient (allegedly) when it was. Carter allegedly was prone to get down into the weeds and trying to micro-manage, bogging everything else down.

Frankly, I'm always very skeptical of "reports" like this. If for no other reason, it can only come from a source at the highest level of security clearance, with direct access to POTUS - at the risk of career suicide.

Do I think Trump is is a really impatient guy that could be an absolute dismissive prick to brief - yeah I can see that. easily  Do I think he routinely risks lives and US security if HUMINT and SIGNET doesn't come to him in the right color crayons... um, no.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Look Sparty, if the man can run the whole county 140 characters at a time, then why should a briefing be any longer? I kid, I kid!

Honestly, given his background, I'd be surprised of much different - that's a CEO mentality.  If I have questions or need more info, I'll ask them. Broadly speaking, I'm ok with that - and that's not a defense of Trump per se, every president I remember has been accused of that. That was "reported" often about Clinton. But he also had an idiot savant-like memory when it came to names and places, he likely didn't need info repeatedly drilled and got a bit impatient (allegedly) when it was. Carter allegedly was prone to get down into the weeds and trying to micro-manage, bogging everything else down.

Frankly, I'm always very skeptical of "reports" like this. If for no other reason, it can only come from a source at the highest level of security clearance, with direct access to POTUS - at the risk of career suicide.

Do I think Trump is is a really impatient guy that could be an absolute dismissive prick to brief - yeah I can see that. easily  Do I think he routinely risks lives and US security if HUMINT and SIGNET doesn't come to him in the right color crayons... um, no.

 

 

 

Trump’s administration has been a sieve for stuff like this coming out so it seems plausible to me. It also corroborates quotes attributed to people who worked closely with him at one time or another. Just this week it’s been reported that the administration limited information on domestic terrorism within its assessments because “it would set off the boss”. Everything I’ve read paints the picture of a group of people who feel they need to walk on eggshells around Trump on issues that anger him (Russia, the darker corners of his base etc..). Beyond that,  some administration officials have been directly quoted as saying they feel the need to protect the country from his worst impulses. Consider the Mueller Report where there are multiple instances of his subordinates simply ignoring his demands because they felt they were crazy or potentially illegal. The historic turnover in his administration further makes the case that it’s a chaotic, difficult environment to work in (even for the west wing). I wonder who will play him in the eventual Disney+ series about his time in the White House. Perhaps Daniel Day Lewis would be willing to come out of retirement and portray a second famous Republican President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the sieve part - and I have a real problem with that. I don't think he realized how deep the swamp was he wanted to drain, and how hard said swamp would fight back. He is a bull in the china shop, and has stepped on toes everywhere and I don't think he gives a damn. In some cases, that's probably a pretty good thing, in he other cases it's detrimental - and frankly I don't think he does well distinguishing between the two.

I absolutely think he should be held accountable, and if he is doing something illegal, or recklessly detrimental, I hope to God people go thru the proper channels to bring those issues to light. "Whistle-blowers" are critical, especially within a democratic government. But by the same token, if your toes are stepped on, feelings are hurt, or just don't like the guy or the way he does things, you should probably stfu and do your job, and grumble to your co-workers like the rest of us do. Unelected mid-level bureaucrats have the right to opinions,  but it's not their place or their job to attempt to undermine an administration or policy by going to the press reporting things that cannot be verified. It goes on in every administration, but far far more in this one, because of Trump being Trump. But that doesn't mean it's ok, or for that matter, even true. And yes, even if was Hillary in the Oval Office, and things being leaked validated my opinions on why she shouldn't be President...I still have a big problem with that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Matt said:

Trump, like GWB, makes for a great scape goat for the real powers behind the scenes. Difference between them is that Trump actually seems to enjoy playing the villain, GWB was just dim. 

I don't know if I agree, disagree - I think both - but I laughed at regardless!

I'm aware most of y'all here loath Trump, and will disagree with whatever he does or says, and that's totally fair.

But I am also certain most of you would be pretty shocked at the discussions and opinions of the administration in private among Trump voters. By in private, I mean in person or messages boards, when we're not be called racists or Nazis by someone before a word is said. Almost everyone that I know who voted for Trump has very similar thoughts about him - and none of us have MAGA hats, and try to avoid conversations with those who do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I don't know if I agree, disagree - I think both - but I laughed at regardless!

I'm aware most of y'all here loath Trump, and will disagree with whatever he does or says, and that's totally fair.

But I am also certain most of you would be pretty shocked at the discussions and opinions of the administration in private among Trump voters. By in private, I mean in person or messages boards, when we're not be called racists or Nazis by someone before a word is said. Almost everyone that I know who voted for Trump has very similar thoughts about him - and none of us have MAGA hats, and try to avoid conversations with those who do...

I’ll move my reply to the Trump thread in a minute, so as not to detract from the original post/thread. 

Theres a big difference between a Trump fan and a republican. 

Edit; can’t do it on my phone. If one of the others in the admin team could leave a link here and move the post to the Trump thread, would be much appreciated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/08/2019 at 11:40, Sibdane said:

I've read the same. It's very alarming that we have a President that doesn't like to read. That tells me he doesn't like get into the details and is easily persuaded by the voices in his ears, but then again he does what he wants regardless of advice. I really don't understand him as president.

He reads daily Twitter trends. This is apparently why he tweeted this weekend that the Clintons murdered Epstein in jail. You read what you choose to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/08/2019 at 14:52, Ghoat said:

I don't know if I agree, disagree - I think both - but I laughed at regardless!

I'm aware most of y'all here loath Trump, and will disagree with whatever he does or says, and that's totally fair.

But I am also certain most of you would be pretty shocked at the discussions and opinions of the administration in private among Trump voters. By in private, I mean in person or messages boards, when we're not be called racists or Nazis by someone before a word is said. Almost everyone that I know who voted for Trump has very similar thoughts about him - and none of us have MAGA hats, and try to avoid conversations with those who do...

The interesting thing, for me, will be what happens when he's gone. As you've pointed out, there is a big difference between people who voted for Trump because of a Republican ideology or for a single issue like abortion and the true MAGA's. While it is not likely to result in a true third party I do think there is going to be quite a wide fissure between these two groups. If this isn't reconciled and you get a situation where MAGA voters won't support traditional conservatives or vice versa it's a potential disaster for the right. You could argue that this is also true of the democrats (progressives vs moderates) but I think the left is going to be more cohesive, at least in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

The interesting thing, for me, will be what happens when he's gone. As you've pointed out, there is a big difference between people who voted for Trump because of a Republican ideology or for a single issue like abortion and the true MAGA's. While it is not likely to result in a true third party I do think there is going to be quite a wide fissure between these two groups. If this isn't reconciled and you get a situation where MAGA voters won't support traditional conservatives or vice versa it's a potential disaster for the right. You could argue that this is also true of the democrats (progressives vs moderates) but I think the left is going to be more cohesive, at least in the short term.

I don't disagree. If you recall, the right was NOT united behind Trump, at all. He wasn't exactly warmly embraced by the right in congress when he arrived either. Among other things, the "drain the swamp" mantra was not simply a shot of the left, but the system, which includes republicans. I'd offer that what has brought more unity to the right, is the left itself. Trump has unified the left "Anyone but Trump" and the incessant banging of the drum, both legitimate and the way over the top, has united the right. I'd submit It's far less rallying behind Trump, and more a result of the nonstop shotgun approach to everything on the right. All the folks I know that voted for Trump basically like what he is doing or trying to do policy-wise, but absolutely hate HOW he goes about it. Besides my brother-in-law, who is a full-blown MAGA dork, that would wear a raincoat if Rush Limbaugh told him it was going to rain. But for the rest of, being generalized as racists, supremacist, xenophobes, nazis, misogynists and generally ignorant on everything via social media and traditional media has done more to unite the right -it just gets old. We will never love Trump as much as the left hates him, ever. 

I think the fractures in the GOP will reappear post-Trump, be in 2020 or 2024. The RNC is going to have a hell of a time trying to find "their guy" - especially when you figure the RNC never wanted Trump until it's base told them to fuck off and put him on the ticket. The moderates and progressives are at war internally on the left, but are united against Trump - which I agree in the short term will give more unity to the left in the first post-Trump election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...