President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

namloc1980

vrt12 wrote: »

I'll reiterate my point again as clearly you do not get it. Report me to mods as much as you like. The constitution does not protect terrorist and murderers or those who preach and practice religions which actively seek to destroy modern society. As for the right to bear arms. How far do you think a terrorist would get going on a rampage down a U.S street? They'd be dead before anyone has even dialled 911. That is the right to bear arms and tovdefend yourself, your family and society.

How many examples are there of shooters in the US being stopped in their tracks by an armed civilian? The answer is: it's vanishingly rare. Vast majority are stopped by the police or shoot themselves. Look at the shooting in Dallas last year - an open carry city. Shooter killed 5 police officers and injured 9 before being stopped. Didn't see him being confronted by armed civilians. Orlando night club attack - 50+ killed. More guns is definitely not the answer.

Billy86

vrt12 wrote: »

No I'm saying all Islamic terrorists are Muslims.

So then your argument means nothing, since all people who shot someone did it wire firearms, but you decided to raise the point that they're protected in the constitution.

If you don't like what the US Constitution says then you shouldn't have brought it up.

vrt12

Billy86 wrote: »

So then your argument means nothing, since all people who shot someone did it wire firearms, but you decided to raise the point that they're protected in the constitution.

If you don't like what the US Constitution says then you shouldn't have brought it up.

I didn't raise the issue of firearms. I only mentioned it in response, it's got nothing to do with my argument but good job deflecting from the issue.

Billy86

vrt12 wrote: »

I didn't raise the issue of firearms. I only mentioned it in response, it's got nothing to do with my argument but good job deflecting from the issue.

Funny you mention deflection - I never one said you raised the issue of firearms. I said you raised the US Constitution as a defense of guns while saying Muslims should not be allowed despite the very first amendment of the very same document your brought up saying the complete opposite of that. It's pretty clear you're not even remotely familiar with it.

Inquitus

vrt12 wrote: »

I don't like the accusations you are making. This discussion is over.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

oscarBravo

vrt12 wrote: »

No I'm saying all Islamic terrorists are Muslims.

...and all right-wing white terrorists are white right-wingers.

I'm sure you think you have a point, but it's not at all clear what it is.

Billy86

vrt12 wrote: »

I never said Muslims should not be allowed. I said the constitution does not protect terrorists oncthe grounds of religion.

I don't like the accusations you are making. This discussion is over.

Well then can you help us all make sense of it and clarify what you meant by these comments?

vrt12 wrote: »

I'll reiterate my point again as clearly you do not get it. Report me to mods as much as you like. The constitution does not protect terrorist and murderers or those who preach and practice religions which actively seek to destroy modern society.

vrt12 wrote: »

Islamist "extremist". I'm sorry that does cut it anymore. The game is up.

What religion actively seeks to destroy modern society, by the way?

StringerBell

As the second amendment has been discussed, what is the general consensus on it in these parts? Of course plenty just use a short hand of the amendment and claim the right to bear arms, it is very rare to be quoted in full so for clarity the full text is

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The question is and has been, did the framers mean a well regulated militia (a collective) have the right to bear arms, being necessary to the security of the state, or is it meant as the pro gun side will claim, an individual right to bear arms, and if so why preface it with mention of a regulated militia?

Like so many other things, it could be a lot clearer and the ambiguity has not helped. An update is well overdue imho.

There have been 27 Amendments approved since the constitution was created in 1788, some have been denied and many, many more discussed. It would be a long shot, pretty much impossible given the requirements to get an Amendment approved as set out in Article 5 but at some point it needs to happen.

Billy86

It'd a tricky one alright, a d I actually don't have much at all against the right to own a gun in and of itself - the Swiss have conscription and if I recall you are given/keep a pistol at the end of your service, so they have very high ownership rates too. Also in many parts of rural America there are animals that could very, very easily kill you of you were not armed.

A big thing to remember is that when the constitution was written, a gun would take a good while to fire, reload etc... The likes of submachine guns just didn't exist. And on top of that there are just so many loopholes about how to legally obtain one that we wind up with people one man arming their way through a school, a college campus, an office building, a nightclub, etc - and that's before mentioning gang culture over there.

Those and an often times shockingly poor approach to mental health concerns are much more of a dangerous threat than the actual right to own a rifle or pistol in my opinion (extensive checks and rigorous training and education as prerequisites should go without saying of course).

ancapailldorcha

If anyone wants to discuss the second amendment, please start a new thread. This one is about Donald Trump. Thanks.

jaykay74

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871725780535062528

I just don't think he has the ability to read and comprehend full sentences. Its like he starts a sentence and then fills in the blanks himself on the possible meaning and stops reading.

20Cent

jaykay74 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871725780535062528

I just don't think he has the ability to read and comprehend full sentences. Its like he starts a sentence and then fills in the blanks himself on the possible meaning and stops reading.

It's like he has a problem with the mayor of London being Muslim.

Water John

I think he has now wandered into the realm of, just being a 'tool'.

Ludo

This is really gone beyond a joke at this stage. He is a pathetic person not to mind a pathetic president. An embarrassment to the USA at this stage. I'd say his state visit to the UK will go well. He is sure to get a warm welcome in London!!!

Mr.Micro

Water John wrote: »

I think he has now wandered into the realm of, just being a 'tool'.

He is nothing better than a troll in life and on the net, IMO.

Itssoeasy

I'm starting to give up. Donald trump knowingly misrepresented what the mayor of London said and is now saying that the mayor had to think fast ? His thought process the little that there is, is all over the place. If the USA somehow re elect him in 2020, then I'm sorry they deserve the mess that will happen.

CMOTDibbler

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm starting to give up. Donald trump knowingly misrepresented what the mayor of London said and is now saying that the mayor had to think fast ? His thought process the little that there is, is all over the place. If the USA somehow re elect him in 2020, then I'm sorry they deserve the mess that will happen.

I think you're being overly kind to Trump. There's no stupidity deep enough to cover what are blatant, repeated lies.

FatherTed

jaykay74 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871725780535062528

I just don't think he has the ability to read and comprehend full sentences. Its like he starts a sentence and then fills in the blanks himself on the possible meaning and stops reading.

I cannot figure how which is worse. How stupid he is or how deranged he is.

oscarBravo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I think you're being overly kind to Trump. There's no stupidity deep enough to cover what are blatant, repeated lies.

As I keep pointing out, there's only one lens through which everything Trump says and does makes perfect sense: the man is insane. Not in any pejorative sense, but in the unfit-to-function-in-society sense.

Keep that in mind whenever you hear him speak or read any of his tweets. You'll find it all makes sense.

PropJoe10

Water John wrote: »

I think he has now wandered into the realm of, just being a 'tool'.

He wandered into that realm in about 1985, to be perfectly honest.

Professor Moriarty

oscarBravo wrote: »

As I keep pointing out, there's only one lens through which everything Trump says and does makes perfect sense: the man is insane. Not in any pejorative sense, but in the unfit-to-function-in-society sense.

Keep that in mind whenever you hear him speak or read any of his tweets. You'll find it all makes sense.

In that context, according to the American Psychiatric Association's DSM 5, these are the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:


It is a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and
present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration.
5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

hmmm

I thought this was pretty stunning news, surprised it is only slowly picking up momentum:
http://www.newsweek.com/who-won-election-nsa-report-suggests-russia-might-have-hacked-voting-system-621213

aloyisious

In other news, Sarah Huckabee Sanders told media that President Trump will not claim executive privilege on Mr Comey to prevent him testifying before committee...... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9gbaY5KfUAhVsJcAKHVdLAXMQFggzMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeadline.com%2F2017%2F06%2Fdonald-trump-executive-privilege-james-comedy-testify-senate-intelligence-committee-sarah-huckabee-sanders-1202107433%2F&usg=AFQjCNFhENrIWsDXVfNEbdhnHGHb2VVhwg

White House interplay with the media: In a raucous press briefing Sanders made another banner headline when she called Trump’s Twitter remarks “extremely important,” Sanders said. This, in marked contrast to POTUS surrogates’ talking points just a couple hours earlier.

Twitter, Sanders said, “gives him the ability to speak directly to the people without the bias of the media filtering those types of communications. He has, at this point, over 100-plus million contacts through social media and those platforms,” she said, adding, “I think it’s a very important tool for him to be able to utilize.”

Then there's Kellyanne Conway's view on the importance of Don's tweeting.... Kellyanne Conway, for instance, visited NBC’s Today show to excoriate the press for covering Trump’ explosive weekend and Monday morning tweets, mocking “this obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little of what he does as president.”

MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin, who was on Today, noted it is Trump’s “preferred method of communication with the American people.”

“Not true,” Conway shot back, though Trump’s Twitter activity indicated otherwise.

aloyisious

I'm going to try post a link from the Washington Post which might not work [the item disappeared and a net-link told me I needed to subscribe to the paper]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/

OK, it seem's to work......

Hank Scorpio

One of the leakers has been caught.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-contractor-reality-leigh-winner-arrested-for-sending-classified-nsa-intelligence-to-news-outlet/article/2625014

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news

Winner, of Augusta, Ga., is facing charges that she removed classified material from a government facility and mailed it to a news outlet. She was arrested on Saturday and appeared on the charge Monday.

The announcement came shortly after The Intercept published a report based on a classified intelligence document showing Russian government hackers attempted to hack more than 100 local election officials before the November election.

aloyisious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

One of the leakers has been caught.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-contractor-reality-leigh-winner-arrested-for-sending-classified-nsa-intelligence-to-news-outlet/article/2625014

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news

Winner, of Augusta, Ga., is facing charges that she removed classified material from a government facility and mailed it to a news outlet. She was arrested on Saturday and appeared on the charge Monday.

The announcement came shortly after The Intercept published a report based on a classified intelligence document showing Russian government hackers attempted to hack more than 100 local election officials before the November election.

So that's one "fake news" story proved as true..... unless Don thinks the US Int Community was fooled into thinking that hackers were active but that would raise the spectre [pun] that some other Int agency tried to interf........ aargh!

I wonder will a trial be in public or will some-one try to have it behind closed doors to prevent a defence trying to introduce details in public...

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

One of the leakers has been caught.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-contractor-reality-leigh-winner-arrested-for-sending-classified-nsa-intelligence-to-news-outlet/article/2625014

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-contractor-georgia-charged-removing-and-mailing-classified-materials-news

Winner, of Augusta, Ga., is facing charges that she removed classified material from a government facility and mailed it to a news outlet. She was arrested on Saturday and appeared on the charge Monday.

The announcement came shortly after The Intercept published a report based on a classified intelligence document showing Russian government hackers attempted to hack more than 100 local election officials before the November election.

So? Lots of people are leaking stuff to newspapers that attacks The Donald. The stuff is government material so it's not fake news like the crap you get on Breitbart. Just means that you can trust the news outlet's sources more. Pity she got caught serving her country well, though.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So? Lots of people are leaking stuff to newspapers that attacks The Donald. The stuff is government material so it's not fake news like the crap you get on Breitbart. Just means that you can trust the news outlet's sources more. Pity she got caught serving her country well, though.

What's with the breitbart slurs, is it some sort of skewed defense mechanism?

Do you reckon it was fine for people to leak UK intelligence after the Manchester attack?

You should at least try to hide your derangement dude.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What's with the breitbart slurs, is it some sort of skewed defense mechanism?

Do you reckon it was fine for people to leak UK intelligence after the Manchester attack?

You should at least try to hide your derangement dude.

Dude? You must be so down with the cool kids.

Sorry, didn't you know Breitbart is an agenda-driven, fake news site? Calling them crap isn't a slur, it's a statement of fact. A compliment actually.

We're talking The Donald here and how he has such a dodgy history and is such a tool that the media and intel agencies that he pissed off are exacting revenge. Lots more to come I'd say. Pity about that woman though. She's the real victim.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dude? You must be so down with the cool kids.

Sorry, didn't you know Breitbart is an agenda-driven, fake news site? Calling them crap isn't a slur, it's a statement of fact. A compliment actually.

We're talking The Donald here and how he has such a dodgy history and is such a tool that the media and intel agencies that he pissed off are exacting revenge. Lots more to come I'd say. Pity about that woman though. She's the real victim.

You brought Breitbart up in a totally unrelated topic for some reason.

I'll ask again, was it ok for people to leak UK intelligence on the Manchester attack or are leaks only selectively ok as long as it's damaging to Trump?