Donald Trump

"

LostForm wrote:

I don't think you fully understand how analogies work. But nice straw man I guess.

...and you don't understand what a "straw man" argument is. *sigh*

You made an analog, as you compared Trump's proposed policy to that of people driving cars. Analogies are almost always inaccurate, especially when you're comparing 'apples and oranges'.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

I don't think you fully understand how analogies work. But nice straw man I guess.

...and you don't understand what a "straw man" argument is. *sigh*

You made an analog, as you compared Trump's proposed policy to that of people driving cars. Analogies are almost always inaccurate, especially when you're comparing 'apples and oranges'.

I actually compared Dalai's analogies of 'liberal mind set' to people driving cars.

"

Antnee wrote:

And in order to mitigate "the ideology", what needs to happen? A complete takeover of the entire middle-east and north Africa?

No, on the contrary. I'm very against any meddling into foreign countries. The West, esp the US has done a lot more harm than good with all the "regime changes" and interventionism. The Middle east / arab world is a snake pit. It should be left alone, let "nature" take it's course and Muslim countries reach their own renaissance. Or kill each other in sectarian wars, whatever.

But I'm also against massive immigration from those very countries. Islam doesn't practice the separation of state and religion yet. Islam is a political system too and as such it can not mix with democracy. Those cultures are very different and the multiculturalism that (radical) liberals are pushing for, will in the end harm the ideals that liberals are suppoedly fighting for: women rights, homosexual rights, atheism,... islamists hate all those ideals.

tail wagging the dog my friend, you are describing the very notion of the tail wagging the dog with your blanket statements.

"

Poutsos wrote:

The whole "islamic terrosism" phenomenon started happening after the west started meddling in the middle east.

Was this in the 70's or when would you say that it began?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If you've listened to Trump's plan, you'd know that not only would they pay for it, but the US would end up making a profit off of the way Mexico paid for it.

I'm aware, and it's just magical thinking,

It's not. Shutting down the fund transfers from the US to Mexico by Mexican nationals would pay for the wall in less than a year.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

and I can think a few scenarios where the world makes it impossible just because of the precedents it would set if it happened.

All the US has to do is begin billing Mexico for the free health care provided in the emergency rooms for all of those here illegally. If Mexico decided to pay that, the wall would be paid in less than six months. If they didn't pay, the debt could be extracted from fund transfers.

The US could do this, and if they did, a lot of places would complain, but then they don't foot the majority of the bill for the UN do they? Do they provide over 1/2 of the world's funding to fight climate change? Do they want to pay the bill for a global defense network?

Mexico would have two choices - pay for the wall now, or pay so very dearly for it that they would beg to build it themselves and pay for it.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

You are probably aware pretty much no one likes Trump outside the US (except some fringe groups in Europe).

No one (except for a few fringe people) likes rain either, but sometimes things we don't like to do are necessary.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Hanlon's razor?

Hanlon's razor points to votes as the driving factor. Getting elected and staying in office is the primary motivator of almost every action made by most politicians. It's like saying a bear ate a fish because it was hungry. The bear didn't eat the fish because it felt that it was morally obligated to keep up the bearish tradition of eating fish.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I mean, following the story, it seems the alternative is a clusterfuck like the no fly list thing.

At first, any new measure would be intrusive. After you've weeded out the weeds, the regulations can be relaxed somewhat with periodic and unpredictable rigid enforcement.

In this case, the FBI could have just done their job properly, and the federal government could have reauthorized the portion of the Patriot Act that allowed them to make gun purchased by people on the terrorist watch list illegal. The law had already been on the books and used for awhile. but the federal government (Both legislative and executive) let it lapse.

The FBI already investigated this guy three times. Then we have Mateen's, who according to CBS made some nasty remarks on Monday:

The Orland gay club gunman's father has well-known anti-American views and is an ideological supporter of the Afghan Taliban. A new message posted by the father on Facebook early Monday morning also makes it clear he could have passed anti-homosexual views onto his son.

Seddique Mir Mateen, father of Orlando gunman Omar Mateen, who died in a shootout with police after killing at least 49 people early Sunday morning, regularly attended Friday prayers at a Florida mosque with his son.

Details on suspected Orlando gunman Omar Mateen

In the video posted early Monday, Seddique Mateen says his son was well-educated and respectful to his parents, and that he was "not aware what motivated him to go into a gay club and kill 50 people."

The elder Mateen says he was saddened by his son's actions during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

He then adds: "God will punish those involved in homosexuality," saying it's, "not an issue that humans should deal with."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-father-seddique-mateen-taliban-god-punish-gays/ Last Updated Jun 13, 2016 2:14 PM EDT

There's more to it than just that, and if you read the rest of the story there, you will probably wonder even more why this Mateen jerk wasn't more carefully watched and prevented from buying weapons.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

No one (except for a few fringe people) likes rain either, but sometimes things we don't like to do are necessary.

I like rain :(

"

LostForm wrote:

I have to say that I think you have your analogies backwards. Liberal mindset is more like a car crash has happened, lets get the paramedics out there, lets get the police directing traffic, lets do some leg work to work through the tragedy.

Trump's solution is more like: car crashes might happen, so we wont allow cars to be driven, we don't want to work through the tragedy.

Hmm, I don't agree with your assessment, but your analogy fits as well as mine did at first glance. However, and this is the crucial part - if the Liberal mindset of doing the leg work to figure out how the tragedy actually happened was done and followed through on a regular basis, I would have no complaints. It isn't. The legwork goes running in the opposite direction when the real facts are unsavory.

Hence - the Benghazi attack was fomented by a western video. Hence, never ever using the word Islamic Terrorism to describe even groups like ISIS. Hence, denying there is any link with terrorism unless their hand is forced. San Bernadino is a case in point.

The Islamic Terrorist attack on Merced is another case in point. The attack happened in November of 2015. Eyewitnesses spoke to the media about the killer having a connection with Islam. The killer even had a .... MANIFESTO... with him, that he handed over to one student he spared. Obama and the federal government denied it was a terrorist attack or there were any tie ins.

Four months later. The FBI released a statement:

"Attacker who stabbed students at UC Merced had ISIS flag, FBI says" and declared it an act of terror.

So, try to guess how much info from that manifesto has been made public, or even shared with the highest security clearances in Congress?

No, this administration is not doing any legwork to find the truth. They are attaching concrete blocks to the truth and throwing it in the river.

"

LostForm wrote:

And get back to me when you explain why an oil train traveling at walking speed derailed

......

Cause is unknown

Herb Krohn, legislative director for the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, the union that represents workers on the train, said the derailment occurred 18 cars back from the front of the train, on relatively straight track.

“When the derailment happened, they looked back, and saw smoke,” Krohn said.

Generally when a derailment happens that far back from the head of a train, it is caused by equipment failure rather than human error, Krohn said.

Krohn said it could be months before investigators know the derailment’s cause.

"

LostForm wrote:

and happens to spawn calls for pipelines

Pipelines are inherently safer then rail cars. Now, when the oversight is lax and the oil companies are allowed to set their own standards, you get disasters caused by penny pinching. This is true whether the industry is crude oil or it's organic spinach.

The Bellingham oil pipeline disaster was caused by such penny pinching and lack of oversight.

You can see the recommendations from the WA dept of Ecology here:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/special_focus/bellingham_pipeline/bellinghampipeline.html

Sometime in the year, IIRC, there were specific problems noted with the rails and the trains using them, and saying that unless they started working on updating the rails and cars, we would have some disasters. They didn't specify oil, but it was well before the crash.

Now consider that the Bellinghamd pipeline disaster at 227.000 gallons, was less than 10% of the pollution caused last year by the EPA itself into the river near Silverton, Colorado.

spilling three million US gallons of mine waste water and tailings, including heavy metals such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, and other toxic elements.

By that measure, the EPA itself represents a greater danger to the environment than an oil pipeline.

"

Antnee wrote:

You know, I honestly couldn't care less about the guy's motives. But fuck this notion that "oh, liberals are PC and that's why this happened". Are you saying he should have been denied his gun purchase because he was on a government watch list?

The source I saw yesterday stated that there was such a provision already in the Patriot Act that wasn't renewed - I should have known better than to trust a government official speaking on CNN without digging into the reference myself.

What I have found since then vindicates what you are saying to a large degree. So, I have to say on this aspect of the issue. I was wrong. My sincere apologies, I posted what I thought was accurate information.

What I have been able to find out is that there was a **proposal for such a gun sale ban made by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill, but that this proposal was defeated by Republicans on the House Judiciary panel in a party-line vote of 21-11. You are indeed right that the NRA opposed the measure.

Had the measure been written more carefully, it might have passed. This is why it didn't pass:

From the United States Government Accountability Office:

Testimony
Before the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate


At the time of our 2009 report, neither DOJ’s proposed legislative language nor then pending related legislation included provisions for the development of guidelines further delineating the circumstances under hich the Attorney General could exercise this authority.

We suggestedthat Congress consider including a provision in any relevant legislation to
require that the Attorney General establish such guidelines, and this provision was included in a subsequent legislative proposal.18 Such a provision would help DOJ and its component agencies provide accountability and a basis for monitoring to ensure that the intended goals
for, and expected results of, the background checks are being achieved.

Guidelines would also help to ensure compliance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 11, which requires that terrorist-related screening— including use of the terrorist watchlist—be done in a manner that safeguards legal rights, including freedoms, civil liberties, and information privacy guaranteed by federal law.19

......

So the GAO had been recommending guidelines for this since the Dept of Justice proposed this authority to deny weapons to terrorists in 2007.

www.gao.gov/new.items/d10703t.pdf

"

Antnee wrote:

Because the NRA isn't fucking having that!!!

Here's the NRA's reasoning on their stance on it:

Some believe that S. 34 (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.) and H.R.1506 (Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.) are intended to prevent “terrorists” from buying guns. Here’s what the bills really propose:

That a person who is not otherwise prohibited from buying a firearm, and who therefore would otherwise pass a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check, could still be prohibited from acquiring a firearm if he is on the FBI’s watchlist.
That once a person is told that he is on the watchlist, he would be subject to a 10-year prison sentence for a gun already possessed, even if he has been placed on the watchlist by mistake, or for a minor or unsubstantiated reason.
That a person who goes to court to challenge his placement on the watchlist would not be informed of the specific suspicions or allegations upon which his watchlisting is based.
That the person’s challenge to his watchlisting would be decided by a judge, not a jury.
That the judge would not be allowed to consider all of the available evidence.

Objections to the Bills

As the name suggests, the “watchlist” is not limited to people guilty of “terrorism”1 or who are suspected of other acts serious enough to warrant their arrest. It broadly includes people “known or reasonably suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism,”2 including those only “being preliminarily investigated to determine whether they have links to terrorism” and those “for whom the FBI does not have an open terrorism investigation.”3
A person accused of serious wrongdoing has the right to know what he has been accused of, to offer evidence in his defense, and to be judged by a jury. A constitutionally protected right cannot be taken away on the basis of a secretive or unsubstantiated accusation. A judge should be allowed to consider evidence which may support the innocence of the accused.
S. 34 and H.R. 1506 are aimed primarily at law-abiding American gun owners. Ninety-five percent of watchlisted persons are already prohibited from acquiring firearms in the U.S., because they are not U.S. citizens or legal resident aliens. (See below.)
NICS already checks the relevant portion of the watchlist, and denies firearms to watchlisted persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms. Tellingly, S. 34’s and H.R. 1506’s sponsors could not name a single gun crime committed by a watchlisted person who purchased a firearm after passing a NICS check. (See below.)
As D.C.’s and Chicago’s handgun bans have proven, prohibiting the possession of firearms doesn’t stop criminals from illegally acquiring them.
There would be an enormous potential for abuse, if the FBI were given arbitrary power over a constitutionally-protected right. This would be true even if the FBI had an unblemished record where civil rights are concerned.

The troubling DHS-FBI “rightwing extremism” report4
There’s a concern that the FBI might watchlist a person as a “suspected terrorist” on dubious grounds. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the FBI, said that “rightwing extremists” prone to “confrontations” with “government authorities” could include:

Americans who have fought in the Global War on Terrorism; Americans who are concerned about issues such as abortion, immigration, the economy, our loss of jobs overseas, including the loss of America’s manufacturing base to China and India, the decline of our construction industry, and home foreclosures;

Americans who disagree with the policies of the Obama Administration and who encourage others to disagree with such policies, or who believe in federalism;

Americans who post their political opinions on the Internet;

Americans who oppose gun control and who, in anticipation of a new push for federal gun control, buy firearms and ammunition;

Americans who disagreed with the Brady Act and semi-automatic firearm ban, and the FBI’s and
BATFE’s actions at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, in the 1990s; and

Americans whose religious beliefs hold that there will occur a time of hardship accompanied by the rise of unscrupulous or evil political leaders.


Considering how the IRS is currently squirming and has destroyed evidence and is refusing to testify for their politically motivated audits, the NRA' suspicion of how Obama would have used these broad powers without any further limitations or controls is probably warranted.

"

Antnee wrote:

You're not stopping a madmad with a gun, period.

How was this Orlando "madman" stopped? With guns. I think calling him a "madman" is an insult to people living with real mental illness. There's a vast difference between hearing voices and just constantly hating other people. Given the degree to which he vocalized his hatred, if he was mentally unstable, it would be straightforward to clinically evaluate him as a danger to others, and he could have been committed. Not in all states, but in Florida it was a possibility.

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (commonly known as the "Baker Act") is a Florida statute allowing for involuntary examination of an individual.

The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person

has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act) and
is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).
Examinations may last up to 72 hours and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.

There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. This includes the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (what some call civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect in 2005.

"

Antnee wrote:

But how much damage could he have done with pistols? A hunting rifle? A shotgun? Maybe, just mayyyyyyybe we should work on getting guns that fucking spray bullets off the street?

If those proposing the gun laws ever sat down and just wrote a simple bill that did just that and only that, it might pass. Instead, every time they do write such a law, they throw in all kinds of other controls and registrations.

California is a great example - You can't get an open carry permit unless your a judge, or a handful of other jobs, and they approve only a handful every year. Yet now, you can't get a concealed carry permit at all either, if the ruling stands.

The kindergartner teacher I knew that saved herself from being raped with the gun in her purse would have been raped.

"

Antnee wrote:

Edit: and LOL for suggesting that people in bars should be armed. Bars, where people get blackout drunk, are the last fucking place you want people waving guns around. I cannot seriously believe you typed that.

There are people who do carry at bars currently. I've been out at plenty of bars where a large number of people were carrying - and not a single shot or drawn weapon. I've seen bar violent bar fights break out where the people fighting had guns but didn't draw them. It took 18 police cars to subdue one of these fights, but no shots were fired.

There is a growing sub culture who like to brandish their weapons and use them on other people just because they think its manly, but guess what percentage of them are gang affiliated?

So.. TL/DR - my source on this was wrong, and your post on it is essentially right, but both the federal government and the NRA pointed out what was wrong with the proposal.

I am curious as to how 4-5 million NRA members in the US can keep from going on killing sprees with all the guns they have?

Good luck Googling stats on NRA members convicted of murder. The number of illegal weapons used to kill however, is a different story.

I'm just glad our President didn't make it easier for killers to get guns. Oh, wait - he did:

In a conference call this morning with Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, reporters were told the Attorney General in Mexico has confirmed at least 200 murders south of the border happened as a result of Operation Fast and Furious.

“I would be remiss if I didn’t mention, as the Attorney General in Mexico is so concerned, she’s made the point that at least 200 Mexicans have been killed with these weapons and probably countless more,” Issa said.

Eleven crimes in the United States have been linked to Operation Fast and Furious up to this point. Issa said he expects as the investigation in the operation continues, more crimes connected to Fast and Furious will come to light and be exposed. This is not surprising, considering out of 2500 weapons the Obama Justice Department allowed to “walk,” and that only 600 have been recovered, the rest are lost until they show up at violent crime scenes. The damage from Operation Fast and Furious has only started to be seen. Remember, the Mexican Government and ATF agents working in Mexico were left completely in the dark about the operation.

So, the guns Obama handed out like candy to drug dealers have killed four times as many people as died in Orlando. This isn't meant to diminish the tragedy of what happened in Orlando. It is both sad and sickening. It is meant to point out that good intentions are never enough when you are dealing with violent criminals and terrorists who will kill to get what they want.

ok, you just compared oil pipelines to mining companies for years storing waste water in a make shift reservoir. They weren't using trains to move that waste water either. But both show a clear lack of impetus by industry to properly handle waste, it is an expense not revenue, and they let the public at large eat the real expense while they limit their red ink on the budget sheet. So yes, you limit their ability to set it and forget it, because it is going to cost us big time in the future. And have you ever been to Columbia gorge? Good luck building in there, it is a very real reason why it is mostly untamed wilderness.

So I don't even see where it was applicable to bring up, and 'caused by EPA themselves', in that yes they disturbed the waste water to try and remove it, but did not in any way put that waste water there, that was industry, so saying EPA 'caused it' is a bit of a red herring, even though they did take credit for the spill.


And as far as finding the reasons why things happen and stop them was covered in my post, fuck a 'freedom algorithm'. Fact is they did punish several of the culprits in the Benghazi attack, just as most of the Paris attackers have been found and punished, just as they busted rings in Belgium because of their actions. You think you can forcast terrorism? I say you are a fool unless you are talking about events manufactured to create talking points, like tannerite and rail road cars.