U.S. Politics 2016: "You Suck!!!" "No, you Suck!!!"

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I just stated that I am for regulation in my post. But, the argument that the removal of guns will stop or even decrease attacks like these take a hit by what transpired at OSU. I was just stating my wonder of this not being discussed in this board. When there is a shooting there is always a thread to show our condolences and frustration of guns in our society. But a stabbing attack doesnt warrant the same? Just found it odd.

I don't think the argument about gun control is that it will stop all murders. Certainly, without guns, people will use other implements to commit violent crimes. The issue is the degree of substitution if you will and the ease of killing with guns. If guns make killing easier and if their isn't perfect substitution between guns and other items, then some gun regulation can make sense.

Like you, I tend to be a moderate on gun control. But, I do think some regulations do have the potential to lessen some violent crime.

[Swordfish]

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

Extending the range of activities that is subsidized makes the proposal more fair, but it also makes it less feasible: where is the money for all of this going to come from? If you can convince the 1% to share the wealth, then I would agree with you -- but it is much more likely that this will come from the poor and middle class.

Indeed.  This is not a world of unlimited resources, even if you start taxing the 1%.

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

 

In other news, there was a car-and-knife attack by a legal Somali immigrant which resulted in the injury of 11 people and the death of the perpetrator (who was shot very quickly after the attack began). People initially tried to spin this as an argument for gun control, but it quickly became obvious that initial reports of a shooter were wrong (the only shots were fired by the police at the perpetrator). Slate claims the attacker had made angry comments about the actions of the US in Muslim nations prior to the attack. Trump may be able to use this to bolster the appeal of his anti-immigration policies.

 

If I were a conspiracy nut, I'd be wondering if this attack was not ingeniously planned to tweak the nipples of the left in this country.

A mass attack, initially reported as active shooter, allowing the predictable clutching of pearls over gun regulation, turns out to be a car/knife attack perpetrated by a Muslim Somali refugee with a knife and a car. I wonder how many tweets and facebook posts agonizing over gun regulation were deleted yesterday? 

Amusing also to watch the news last night and see them handwringing with stuff like 'Authorities not ruling out terrorism' and 'Authorities still trying to determine motive'.

 

8 hours ago, Mudguard said:

 

How is a statement like this not casting doubt on the integrity of our elections?  

 

It just, like, different....  And stuff......

 

4 hours ago, Castel said:

Lol, how many people were praying that was in 2013 or something?

Hopefully all of us.

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

They always vote against their own self-interest. I don't understand it, either. 

They re just dumb, redneck, bigots.  What do you expect?

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's some truth to this. Almost all of the people that are taking the "wait and see" approach are in groups that Trump and his supporters haven't expressed disdain for. 

I'm jot sure there are very many of those groups left at this point.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

It was also basically toothless; it required that if you did burn the flag you were doing so in order to incite violence or terrorism - and that would be the federal law. It was a shitty move by her, but it was also a basically totally harmless law.

Laws that ignore the first amendment and attempt to circumvent it, even marginally, are totally harmless. 

It's another indication of what a shameless political opportunist she is.

[butterbumps!]

28 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I just stated that I am for regulation in my post. But, the argument that the removal of guns will stop or even decrease attacks like these take a hit by what transpired at OSU. I was just stating my wonder of this not being discussed in this board. When there is a shooting there is always a thread to show our condolences and frustration of guns in our society. But a stabbing attack doesnt warrant the same? Just found it odd.

I'm not looking to turn this into a thing, but if that's the case, why did you introduce the topic with this

44 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I came to General looking for a thread about the stabbings at Ohio St. campus.....there are none. Where's the cries for banning and regulating vehicles and cutlery? 

Which implies some degree of disdain for  and mockery of regulation arguments.   

Again Im not looking to make a thing of this, only that I thought your intro was unneccasarily loaded and misleading if being disdainful of gun regulation wasn't your point.   

Eta: nvm I see your point was to question the sincerity of threads following incidents of gun violence by pointing to hypocrisy over the absence of such here

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think the argument about gun control is that it will stop all murders. Certainly, without guns, people will use other implements to commit violent crimes. The issue is the degree of substitution if you will and the ease of killing with guns. If guns make killing easier and if their isn't perfect substitution between guns and other items, then some gun regulation can make sense.

Like you, I tend to be a moderate on gun control. But, I do think some regulations do have the potential to lessen some violent crime.

Right. Agree with you 100%. My point, and guess it's being a smartass, are the threads that are made for the shootings sincere in offering their condolences, or are they a opportunity to bring up an agenda? Id think the loss of life, regardless of how it was taken, should deserve the same respect and support for their loved ones. So, I was wondering why no such thread exists for the victims of OSU. If it were a shooting, I'd bet the house there would be a thread and it would be the "hot" topic of the day. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Right. Agree with you 100%. My point, and guess it's being a smartass, are the threads that are made for the shootings sincere in offering their condolences, or are they a opportunity to bring up an agenda? Id think the loss of life, regardless of how it was taken, should deserve the same respect and support for their loved ones. So, I was wondering why no such thread exists for the victims of OSU. If it were a shooting, I'd bet the house there would be a thread and it would be the "hot" topic of the day. 

This whole conversation is absurdly off topic and kind of bullshit. Make a thread for it. 

[LongRider]

Final question in the NYT interview;

Quote

MARK THOMPSON: Thank you, and it’s a really short one, but after all the talk about libel and libel laws, are you committed to the First Amendment to the Constitution?

TRUMP: Oh, I was hoping he wasn’t going to say that. I think you’ll be happy. I think you’ll be happy. Actually, somebody said to me on that, they said, ‘You know, it’s a great idea, softening up those laws, but you may get sued a lot more.’ I said, ‘You know, you’re right, I never thought about that.’ I said, ‘You know, I have to start thinking about that.’ So, I, I think you’ll be O.K. I think you’re going to be fine.

 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

In my view, this bolsters the gun control argument rather than undermines it. Same mass attack, zero deaths. 

I'm not getting sucked into that conversation.  It's been done and overdone here.

I just thought the circumstances here were amusing.

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Right. Agree with you 100%. My point, and guess it's being a smartass, are the threads that are made for the shootings sincere in offering their condolences, or are they a opportunity to bring up an agenda? Id think the loss of life, regardless of how it was taken, should deserve the same respect and support for their loved ones. So, I was wondering why no such thread exists for the victims of OSU. If it were a shooting, I'd bet the house there would be a thread and it would be the "hot" topic of the day. 

OK. So you're using the fact that there was not a thread about this incident - although it was discussed prior to your post in this thread - as evidence that people expressing condolences are acting in bad faith? Don't you think that's just a tiny bit unfair? And do you see that your post is vulnerable to the exact same accusation?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm jot sure there are very many of those groups left at this point.

He's still got the historically most powerful group backing him, and it's one that's very self aware that their power is waning.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

He's still got the historically most powerful group backing him, and it's one that's very self aware that their power is waning.

It's not a binary.  The members of that 'group' are also members of a lot of other 'groups'.

And his support among them was not universal to begin with.

[AverageGuy]

18 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Id think the loss of life, regardless of how it was taken, should deserve the same respect and support for their loved ones.

What loss of life? No victims died at OSU. The attacker was shot and killed, but given that he was trying to kill people at the time, I lack sympathy. 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

 

Just now, mormont said:

OK. So you're using the fact that there was not a thread about this incident - although it was discussed prior to your post in this thread - as evidence that people expressing condolences are acting in bad faith? Don't you think that's just a tiny bit unfair? And do you see that your post is vulnerable to the exact same accusation?

I don't think that the condolences are in bad faith, just used as a way to start arguments over an agenda, gun control. I was just stating an observation, and I guess it's off topic. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

24 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Right. Agree with you 100%. My point, and guess it's being a smartass, are the threads that are made for the shootings sincere in offering their condolences, or are they a opportunity to bring up an agenda? Id think the loss of life, regardless of how it was taken, should deserve the same respect and support for their loved ones. So, I was wondering why no such thread exists for the victims of OSU. If it were a shooting, I'd bet the house there would be a thread and it would be the "hot" topic of the day. 

Outside of the fact that no loss of life occurred here, other than the perpetrator's. Why do you think that might be? 

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Just so we're clear, you're cool with "tweaking the nipples of the left" (predictable clutching of pearls) and insinuating that "the left's" arguments are in bad faith, but when you get pushback don't want to engage in further discussion? 

That reminds me of something that happens online. It rhymes with "rolling".

I don't want to engage in discussions about gun control, because they've been done and overdone here.

If you consider that trolling, then so be it.  There's simply no new ground to cover on the topic of gun control, so i don't find it interesting. If you want to discuss, by all means, go right ahead.  

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Outside of the fact that no loss of life occurred here, outside of the perpetrator's. Why do you think that might be? 

It was still a attack, people was still hurt and his intent was to murder. I just thought that when anything like this occurs there is a thread for it and discussion. I was truly surprised there wasnt, and my thought was that there wasn't a gun involved. You know, if you don't think that this board is heavily leaning to the left and ready to jump on any agenda that could boost their position, then I think you're lying to yourself. Sorry, was just pointing out an observation. I didn't read the thread and see that it was discussed. I just posted in politics because their was no thread for it. 

[Altherion]

50 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Let's let this sink in; "To me more important is taking care of the people that really have proven to be, to love Donald Trump."

Wow.

What exactly do you find worthy of a "wow" here? This is one of the most basic tenets of politics. Politician promises to prioritize people who put him in power. In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

What exactly do you find worthy of a "wow" here? This is one of the most basic tenets of politics. Politician promises to prioritize people who put him in power. In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

This isn't typical political deal making, it's about people personally 'loving' Donald Trump.  Big difference.  Not about politics, it's about him, Donald Trump, himself.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

But I don't consider that trolling. I'm not sure where you got that idea. 

Well...  If you consider it Rickrolling, then I disagree, but am willing to discuss.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

It was still a attack, people was still hurt and his intent was to murder. I just thought that when anything like this occurs there is a thread for it and discussion. I was truly surprised there wasnt, and my thought was that there wasn't a gun involved. You know, if you don't think that this board is heavily leaning to the left and ready to jump on any agenda that could boost their position, then I think you're lying to yourself. Sorry, was just pointing out an observation. I didn't read the thread and see that it was discussed. I just posted in politics because their was no thread for it. 

Yes, this board leans Left. Turns out reality seems to as well. You know like when it's shown that tools like cars and knives, that are not primarily designed to kill other people, aren't nearly as efficient as guns when used for that purpose.