Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

amandstu

Water John wrote: »

Very sad to see Trump already accepting Saudi nonsense of a fight gone wrong resulting in Khashoggi's death as credible.
Absolutely no one believes it.

"Trust me ,I am corrupt"
(In maleficio ,fidemus")

It goes on and on.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are two counterpoints to that.

One is that the reduction in crime may also be correlated with a reduction in lawful use as well, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your position. This is also assuming the whole correlation/causation thing.

The other is that there is something of a split of opinion in law enforcement. As a rule, Chiefs of Police tend to prefer gun control. Sheriffs tend to oppose it. https://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/why-so-many-police-chiefs-favor-gun-control-when-most-sheriffs-dont/#axzz5URynmu37 There are two main reasons for this. One is that police chiefs generally are found in cities. They have urban problems where some solutions can be more beneficial than others. Gun control tends to suit their purposes. Sheriffs are not city, but county based. They usually have more rural areas, longer response times, and different problems. Firearms tend to be more useful for their citizens, and a lot of the urban problems (gang warfare etc) simply don’t apply to them. The other, though not quite as important, is that Sheriffs are usually directly elected by the citizenry as a whole, while Chiefs of police are accountable to the city leadership who appoints them. If the Mayor is anti-gun (eg SF) the Chief of Police had better be as well.
We chiefs get our opinion on firearm ownership when it is issued to us.”

The other is that in recent years, the opinion of police chiefs has become less unified.
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/446866939/gun-debate-divides-nations-police-officers-too
Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist at the University of Toronto who studies police attitudes toward gun laws, says this divide has grown since the 1990s. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill.

"And now you've really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly," she says. "That's been a major shift."

She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn't cause a big increase in shootings.

The other split is frequently the difference between police department leadership and the rank and file officers. Police usually take pro-gun positions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/as-states-expand-gun-rights-police-join-opposition.html
Despite the current conflicts, police officers and gun rights advocates have long been largely on the same side of the national debate over guns.

From the guys on the pointy end, for example.
https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/
PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.
<snip>
More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.
<snip>
More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.
<snip>
From all ranks, from Sheriffs and Chiefs on down, the vast majority (95 percent) say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

This is in sharp contrast to my own home state of Colorado, where the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police stood in support of the magazine ban and other restrictions while many Sheriffs bluntly said in the press that they would not enforce any bans on magazines or so called assault weapons.

Again, that Chief/Sheriff divide.

Surprised you would be surprised that American can behave civilly in a debate.

I'm reckoning that if the big mags were de-legalized for civil use, as most gun crime is through civil use, there would PROBABLY be a reduced number of casualties [via bystander injury] from auto-fire spray on the "every bullet finds a billet" basis. A severe re-think is needed om the actual basis behind the right to bear arms: is there a need for it as the need for the minutemen is ancient US history [or am I wrong there?].

I know the theory behind the every one having a weapon reduces gun deaths as the bad person would bear that in mind but the fact that the initial firer is reacting to [sight or sound] stimuli into getting the 1st round off and then when others get their weapons out, snap-shooting hot metal is going everywhere without time for several seconds of reasoned thought on any firers part as to how to fire with/to effect minimum casualties.

Re the debate, as it was related to what the US media [and Don] tell us is a hot issue [civil arms control law to reduce civil gun deaths V the amendment rights of the citizen] it was nice to hear no one hollering from the "audience".

amandstu

Incredible juxtaposition when I think about it

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/19/trump-greg-gianforte-guardian-reporter-assault

Is the Crown Prince , MbS also "my guy" perhaps?

Could the Saudis have worked out that a "fist fight" might have somehow appealed to him?(seems to be stretching things)

Timberrrrrrrr

amandstu wrote: »

Incredible juxtaposition when I think about it

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/19/trump-greg-gianforte-guardian-reporter-assault

Is the Crown Prince , MbS also "my guy" perhaps?

More proof that Trump is nothing more than a self obsessed low life, the title od POTUS is becoming an embarrassment and god help the poor person that has to take over from him and try undo all of the damage he has caused.

Christy42

I think Saudis knew from a long way out that the US would follow their directions. They just needed a bit hand wriggling first.

Rhineshark

Christy42 wrote: »

I think Saudis knew from a long way out that the US would follow their directions. They just needed a bit hand wriggling first.

After Trump's pathetic lack of response to the bizarre Canada thing, MBS probably knew he was ok to keep pushing.

He was only a WaPo(-linked) journalist after all..

Jolly Red Giant

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

More proof that Trump is nothing more than a self obsessed low life, the title od POTUS is becoming an embarrassment and god help the poor person that has to take over from him and try undo all of the damage he has caused.

Emails were revealed yesterday that showed that GSA Administrator Emily Murphy lied to the Senate about the decision to stop the relocation of the FBI head office. Murphy claimed that Trump had nothing to do with it - the emails showed that at a meeting last January Trump told Murphy to stop the relocation.

The reason - the FBI HQ building is falling to pieces (literally) and a deal was in place that a private developer would build a new HQ for the FBI and pay a substantial amount of money for the existing site - the developer would then knock the FBI building and build a new complex including a luxury hotel.

Why did Trump want this stopped - because Trump has a hotel that is practically directly across the road from the FBI offices and he didn't want the competition.

The guy is interested in lining his own pocket - nothing more and nothing less - in the same way that he will back the Saudis because they have bought 'hundreds of millions' worth of property - the same with Putin and Russia where Trump has major investments.

Igotadose

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Emails were revealed yesterday that showed that GSA Administrator Emily Murphy lied to the Senate about the decision to stop the relocation of the FBI head office. Murphy claimed that Trump had nothing to do with it - the emails showed that at a meeting last January Trump told Murphy to stop the relocation.

The reason - the FBI HQ building is falling to pieces (literally) and a deal was in place that a private developer would build a new HQ for the FBI and pay a substantial amount of money for the existing site - the developer would then knock the FBI building and build a new complex including a luxury hotel.

Why did Trump want this stopped - because Trump has a hotel that is practically directly across the road from the FBI offices and he didn't want the competition.

The guy is interested in lining his own pocket - nothing more and nothing less - in the same way that he will back the Saudis because they have bought 'hundreds of millions' worth of property - the same with Putin and Russia where Trump has major investments.

And staying in the old location, will cost the taxpayer more, and house fewer employees. #MAGA .

Trump apparently had show interest in the area some years ago, too. https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2018/10/new-evidence-suggests-trumps-coordination-gsa-fbi-headquarters-plan/152128/

One thing I just realized, is just how much mischief the Trump crime family will get into post-his occupation of the WH. Privy to all kinds of long-term government real estate plans, no doubt keeping their powder dry until they have free reign to capitalize on this kind of ultimate insider information. Probably the Trump crime family will be involved in US government business now for decades to come. How sad.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm reckoning that if the big mags were de-legalized for civil use, as most gun crime is through civil use, there would PROBABLY be a reduced number of casualties [via bystander injury] from auto-fire spray on the "every bullet finds a billet" basis. A severe re-think is needed om the actual basis behind the right to bear arms: is there a need for it as the need for the minutemen is ancient US history [or am I wrong there?].

I know the theory behind the every one having a weapon reduces gun deaths as the bad person would bear that in mind but the fact that the initial firer is reacting to [sight or sound] stimuli into getting the 1st round off and then when others get their weapons out, snap-shooting hot metal is going everywhere without time for several seconds of reasoned thought on any firers part as to how to fire with/to effect minimum casualties.

Re the debate, as it was related to what the US media [and Don] tell us is a hot issue [civil arms control law to reduce civil gun deaths V the amendment rights of the citizen] it was nice to hear no one hollering from the "audience".

Well, we've been over the arguments ad nauseum, and no doubt we'll go over them again after the next significant mass shooting. (A sad reflection on society to think we're likely overdue). Personally, I am at a loss to think of any time a spree shooter has run out of ammunition, normally they are loaded for bear with spare magazines. The only time I know of where a shooter was taken down during a magazine change (Arizona, Giffords shooting), ironicially it was a jam caused because the magazine was so large it was a novelty item, considered unreliable by serious shooters for that exact reason. Private citizens lawfully using firearms, especially in the house for home defense, tend not to carry multiple spare magazines, what they have in the weapon is all they tend to get. There may be a positive to restricting magazine size (practicalities of the ban notwithstanding), but there are certainly negatives to be considered as well.

Either way, the point was to further illustrate the difference between the opinions of most appointed chiefs of police, and those of elected sheriffs and street cops.

Yes, we no longer have minutemen, even though the 'citizen soldier' ethos is still strong. I wear a minuteman as my unit patch, as it happens.
https://www.iragreen.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/c687aa7517cf01e65c009f6943c2b1e9/h/t/httpiragreen.compubmediacatalogproduct1-1-p725aocp.jpg )
Similarly, obviously, posses are also something of an anachronism last seen in the mid 19th century, not that police tend to object to when a passing citizen with a gun helps out a cop, such as https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/arizona-good-samaritan-kills-man-beating-trooper/index.html

However, in the case that the US does need a rapid influx of military personnel, which of course is why we have the draft, there is evidence to support the idea that recruits who are already proficient with firearms are both faster to train and more accurate than those who are not. There were a couple of submissions on the matter by retired generals to the Supreme Court in the Heller case arguing a national security interest. It is also why the Civilian Marksmanship Program exists (and has for over a century), the government both selling ex-military firearms to private citizens and providing training on their use. It was originally set up to ensure that the citizenry were familiar with the latest in military firearms technology, in that case, because citizens with their lever action rifles didn't know how to rapidly operate the new bolt-actions coming onstream as standard military issue. This has become less feasible in recent years: With the stock of M1 carbines (old semi-auto magazine-fed rifles) expended , the next rifle in the disposal inventory would be the M14, but that is legally a machinegun and sales to the general populace are far more difficult under the NFA. M1911 semi-auto pistols are still available, and with the upcoming adoption of the new SIG, I would expect the Army's current Beretta sidearms to be cascaded down for civilian sale soon enough.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, we've been over the arguments ad nauseum, and no doubt we'll go over them again after the next significant mass shooting. (A sad reflection on society to think we're likely overdue). Personally, I am at a loss to think of any time a spree shooter has run out of ammunition, normally they are loaded for bear with spare magazines. The only time I know of where a shooter was taken down during a magazine change (Arizona, Giffords shooting), ironicially it was a jam caused because the magazine was so large it was a novelty item, considered unreliable by serious shooters for that exact reason. Private citizens lawfully using firearms, especially in the house for home defense, tend not to carry multiple spare magazines, what they have in the weapon is all they tend to get. There may be a positive to restricting magazine size (practicalities of the ban notwithstanding), but there are certainly negatives to be considered as well.

Either way, the point was to further illustrate the difference between the opinions of most appointed chiefs of police, and those of elected sheriffs and street cops.

Yes, we no longer have minutemen, even though the 'citizen soldier' ethos is still strong. I wear a minuteman as my unit patch, as it happens.
https://www.iragreen.com/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/c687aa7517cf01e65c009f6943c2b1e9/h/t/httpiragreen.compubmediacatalogproduct1-1-p725aocp.jpg )
Similarly, obviously, posses are also something of an anachronism last seen in the mid 19th century, not that police tend to object to when a passing citizen with a gun helps out a cop, such as https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/arizona-good-samaritan-kills-man-beating-trooper/index.html

However, in the case that the US does need a rapid influx of military personnel, which of course is why we have the draft, there is evidence to support the idea that recruits who are already proficient with firearms are both faster to train and more accurate than those who are not. There were a couple of submissions on the matter by retired generals to the Supreme Court in the Heller case arguing a national security interest. It is also why the Civilian Marksmanship Program exists (and has for over a century), the government both selling ex-military firearms to private citizens and providing training on their use. It was originally set up to ensure that the citizenry were familiar with the latest in military firearms technology, in that case, because citizens with their lever action rifles didn't know how to rapidly operate the new bolt-actions coming onstream as standard military issue. This has become less feasible in recent years: With the stock of M1 carbines (old semi-auto magazine-fed rifles) expended , the next rifle in the disposal inventory would be the M14, but that is legally a machinegun and sales to the general populace are far more difficult under the NFA. M1911 semi-auto pistols are still available, and with the upcoming adoption of the new SIG, I would expect the Army's current Beretta sidearms to be cascaded down for civilian sale soon enough.

Ta for the info on the Colt and the M1, used both & found the carbine short, lighter & handy compared to the Lee-Enfields Mk 3 & 4 I trained with. I found the Colt very similar to the B.A.P I used most as pistol preference. Lol at the mishap during mag-change ending the firer's career [NOT ASKING NOW] presuming he didn't have a round in the breech to resume firing, or got a double-feed.

Igotadose

Perhaps Trump's done some good:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/412263-early-voting-hints-at-huge-turnout

Huge turnout sounds great to me. Now let the guessing games begin, still 3 weeks to go.

batgoat

https://hillreporter.com/trump-administration-proposes-new-religious-law-that-attacks-lgbtq-workers-10975

Looks to be a new law in the works that will attack LGBTQ community, would allow for LGBTQ staff to be fired for their sexuality on religious grounds.


But he held up a flag so there will be a few that will still claim he's good on lgbtq issues...

Kermit.de.frog

US to pull out of nuclear treaty with Russia the Orange one has decreed.

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-confirms-us-to-pull-out-of-nuclear-treaty-with-russia-11531257

Timberrrrrrrr

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

US to pull out of nuclear treaty with Russia the Orange one has decreed.

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-confirms-us-to-pull-out-of-nuclear-treaty-with-russia-11531257

Seriously, how can anyone defend the actions of this megalomaniac because honestly that's the only word i can think if to describe him right now.

I grew up in the 80's and even as a teen i remember the fear of nuclear war, Trump is threatening to throw away 30 years of stability just to stroke his own idiotic ego.

pixelburp

Trump says Russia broke the terms. Ok, let's run with that. Then why scrap the deal altogether, at which point all of the terms become null and void anyway? Good diplomacy would be sanctions, or the threat thereof and immediate talks to restamp the agreement. Not tear the whold thung up. Negating the treaty just validates the original breakage, and allows Russia to uptick any armament it sees... ooh now it makes sense. I guess we're on our way to another proxy war eh? Korea's off the table I guess... Ukraine maybe?

aloyisious

batgoat wrote: »

https://hillreporter.com/trump-administration-proposes-new-religious-law-that-attacks-lgbtq-workers-10975

Looks to be a new law in the works that will attack LGBTQ community, would allow for LGBTQ staff to be fired for their sexuality on religious grounds.


But he held up a flag so there will be a few that will still claim he's good on lgbtq issues...

So is the initiator POTUS or his V/P? Is it even a true story or something being floated as a distraction?

PropJoe10

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

US to pull out of nuclear treaty with Russia the Orange one has decreed.

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-confirms-us-to-pull-out-of-nuclear-treaty-with-russia-11531257

Good man Donald, you f**kin clown. Diplomacy gone out the window again.

batgoat

pixelburp wrote: »

Trump says Russia broke the terms. Ok, let's run with that. Then why scrap the deal altogether, at which point all of the terms become null and void anyway? Good diplomacy would be sanctions, or the threat thereof and immediate talks to restamp the agreement. Not tear the whold thung up. Negating the treaty just validates the original breakage, and allows Russia to uptick any armament it sees... ooh now it makes sense. I guess we're on our way to another proxy war eh? Korea's off the table I guess... Ukraine maybe?

Wonder if it's partially to dissuade the world from Russian stuff tbh.... Pretending to be taking a hard line.

pixelburp

I believe the rumour mill is saying this move was borne from Bolton's table. Not that that should come as any shock. So his contributions to the White House are going precisely as aggressively horrible as we feared. The only surprise is Trump tearing up an agreement made in the Regan years, you'd think that'd be sacrosanct. ..

Kermit.de.frog

We are in damage limitation space. The best we can hope for is that the world gets through this "Presidency" in one piece.

AMKC

The sooner this fake buffoon of a so called president is gone the better. How stupid can he be. He has zero morals and just cares about his own fat ego the loon.

Water John

The Guardian had that on Friday, Bolton urging Trump to withdraw from the nuclear Russian agreement.
I remember as a small boy, the frightening dread everyone had around the days of the Cuba standoff, with JFK.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/19/john-bolton-russia-nuclear-arms-deal-trump-lobbying
bolton was known to be dangerous before he was appointed and his record of being wrong.

TomOnBoard

"Nobody is tougher on Russia than me.."

FrostyJack

pixelburp wrote: »

I believe the rumour mill is saying this move was borne from Bolton's table. Not that that should come as any shock. So his contributions to the White House are going precisely as aggressively horrible as we feared. The only surprise is Trump tearing up an agreement made in the Regan years, you'd think that'd be sacrosanct. ..

Though some will see this as being strong against Russia, surely this means it releases Russia from the terms of the treaty, which maybe what they want. Russia is not a power in terms of conventional battlefield but in non conventional they have only the US to compete with leaving the rest of Europe at a severe disadvantage. This also is a great PR result for Russia, RT/Kremlin can spin this as US breaking the treaty or warmongers, either way it is not good for us.
If Bolton is responsible he must be booted out by the inner circle of the Whitehouse, there is enough trouble with one madman there.

Igotadose

FrostyJack wrote: »

Though some will see this as being strong against Russia, surely this means it releases Russia from the terms of the treaty, which maybe what they want. Russia is not a power in terms of conventional battlefield but in non conventional they have only the US to compete with leaving the rest of Europe at a severe disadvantage. This also is a great PR result for Russia, RT/Kremlin can spin this as US breaking the treaty or warmongers, either way it is not good for us.
If Bolton is responsible he must be booted out by the inner circle of the Whitehouse, there is enough trouble with one madman there.

Oh, I think Putin is very happy with this. And now, the US gets to build more nukes to threaten China with.

So, where are the 'Trump's better for peace than HRC' now? I believe those taking that line, really mean 'Trump's the head of the anti-abortion party and that's all that matters to me, HRC's a woman, can't trust them.'

Doomsday clock's probably ticked up a bunch today. Great times.

pixelburp

From what I can see, no details have been given as to what Russia actually did that constituted a treaty breakage. Not that details are Trumps strong suit, but feels like the most basic question to be hammering the WH with.

Though he did say this "We are going to terminate the agreement and then we are going to develop the weapons". So there's that. I can only hope this idea gets lost in the bureaucratic detritus.

Remember how erstwhile posters here swore blind Clinton was the warmonger? That she was worse than Trump? Man that horsesh*the stinks worse with each passing week...

Igotadose

pixelburp wrote: »

Remember how erstwhile posters here swore blind Clinton was the warmonger? That she was worse than Trump? Man that horsesh*the stinks worse with each passing week...

Oh, I think those types were all about the tGOP 'agenda' and could care less about war and peace. It's serious cognitive dissonance to think the tGOP warmongers weren't going to be worse for peace than HRC.

But, really, the US isn't exactly a nation of peacemongers, war is big business after all, and I suspect nuclear weapon construction is huge profit for the companies that do it. Hopefully the media can chase down the links from whoever does that work (I think it's contract work run by the DoD to a lot of the usual military complex companies.) No doubt lines right up into Trump's cabinet and the Trump crime family.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

From what I can see, no details have been given as to what Russia actually did that constituted a treaty breakage. Not that details are Trumps strong suit, but feels like the most basic question to be hammering the WH with.

Though he did say this "We are going to terminate the agreement and then we are going to develop the weapons". So there's that. I can only hope this idea gets lost in the bureaucratic detritus.

Remember how erstwhile posters here swore blind Clinton was the warmonger? That she was worse than Trump? Man that horsesh*the stinks worse with each passing week...

There were no excuses to pull out of the Iran deal either.. other than Obama making it in the first place

aloyisious

I'm assuming that there will be a game-plan by Bolton to get a new deal with Russia with ensurable compliance with it's terms before actually revoking the original deal, unless the game-plan is for an arms race.

Peculiar thing is that Ronnie was the president who supposedly forced Russia to back down into a state of into military decay and saved the day for the US. I don't have figures on whether there was a military cost-savings for the Federal budget into the bargain back then.

Any feedback from the GOP on his latest move?

batgoat

pixelburp wrote: »

From what I can see, no details have been given as to what Russia actually did that constituted a treaty breakage. Not that details are Trumps strong suit, but feels like the most basic question to be hammering the WH with.

Though he did say this "We are going to terminate the agreement and then we are going to develop the weapons". So there's that. I can only hope this idea gets lost in the bureaucratic detritus.

Remember how erstwhile posters here swore blind Clinton was the warmonger? That she was worse than Trump? Man that horsesh*the stinks worse with each passing week...

The Clinton stuff I saw posted about 3 days ago... 🀣