Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Eric Cartman

Dytalus wrote: »

In 2018, however, every single ideologically motivated murder was caused by far right extremism. In only one of the documented instances was the perpetrator noted as switching from white nationalist to radical islamist beliefs prior to the murder.

So did islam take a year off or does that mean increased deportations, increased ICE spending and the ban from terror prone countries has worked then ?

Andother way to look at this is that 2018 Donald Trump wiped out domestic islamic terrorism.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So did islam take a year off or does that mean increased deportations, increased ICE spending and the ban from terror prone countries has worked then ?

Andother way to look at this is that 2018 Donald Trump wiped out domestic islamic terrorism.

Correlation doesn't equal causality

Dytalus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So did islam take a year off or does that mean increased deportations, increased ICE spending and the ban from terror prone countries has worked then ?

Andother way to look at this is that 2018 Donald Trump wiped out domestic islamic terrorism.

It could equally have just as much to do with the decline of ISIS. Islamic terror attacks around the world have dropped substantially over the course of 2017 and 2018 - dropping 20% in 2017 alone. Statistics for 2018 are not released, but it was on course for a similar (if not larger) drop itself. It's hard to claim the decline in attacks in Africa or Europe is a result of Trump's policies.

2014 saw a sizable spike in terror attacks, a fact which was linked to the rise of ISIS and other extremist groups, and would have massively skewed statistics for 2014-2016. ISIS has since lost an enormous amount of territory, funding, and recruitment opportunities - a sizable percentage of which they lost in 2017. Between 2014 and 2015 there was an 80% rise in deaths related to terrorism. 2014's death toll was nine times the year 2000's.

Could Trump's policies have had an effect? Possibly, I'd even say probably. But they were not in isolation. Catching people at the border doesn't tend to stop domestic terrorism, what with the whole "homebrew" thing. Intelligence and counterterrorism efforts around the world have improved significantly - leading to catching attempts before they occur. ISIS is a walking corpse (if it's any more than dust and ash at this point), and the rate of terror attacks is finally normalising to pre-2014 levels.

These would have all worked in conjunction to prevent islamic terror attacks from occuring in the US, which is already shielded from the worst afflicted regions by the same ocean which makes it impossible to invade. Terrorist organisation have to cross water too when 'smuggling people in', as they're so often accused of doing. It's rather disingenuous to say "Trump did it" and leave it at that.

dr.fuzzenstein

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So did islam take a year off or does that mean increased deportations, increased ICE spending and the ban from terror prone countries has worked then ?

Andother way to look at this is that 2018 Donald Trump wiped out domestic islamic terrorism.

Is this Tiger Rock logic deliberate?

Eric Cartman

Id almost certainly say its a mix of measures. Terrorism overall is in decline , partial credit has to go to mattis and the trump administration for a hand in it, Obama policies also helped before anyone jumps at me.

Obviously the figures wont all be totted up for atleast another year but id be interested to see what the stats are like regarding gang violence particularly drug cartels and MS13.

The real question for me is , has terrorism and disorder just halted to such a low level in the US that domestic terror groups / gangs like Antifa, BLM, the tiki torch brigade are now a visible statistic or is it that there has been a genuine rise in anti capitalist, anti white and white supremacist attacks.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Id almost certainly say its a mix of measures. Terrorism overall is in decline , partial credit has to go to mattis and the trump administration for a hand in it, Obama policies also helped before anyone jumps at me.

Obviously the figures wont all be totted up for atleast another year but id be interested to see what the stats are like regarding gang violence particularly drug cartels and MS13.

The real question for me is , has terrorism and disorder just halted to such a low level in the US that domestic terror groups / gangs like Antifa, BLM, the tiki torch brigade are now a visible statistic or is it that there has been a genuine rise in anti capitalist, anti white and white supremacist attacks.

Is a citation too much to ask for on this? Stats, facts, figures, y'know the way we prove things

Eric Cartman

duploelabs wrote: »

Is a citation too much to ask for on this? Stats, facts, figures, y'know the way we prove things

Are you saying that mattis and the trump administration are in no way responsible for the almost eradication of ISIS

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Are you saying that mattis and the trump administration are in no way responsible for the almost eradication of ISIS

If Mattis was, Trump has a funny way of showing appreciation.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Are you saying that mattis and the trump administration are in no way responsible for the almost eradication of ISIS

I said nothing of the kind, I merely asked you to back up your initial claim.

Blowfish

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Are you saying that mattis and the trump administration are in no way responsible for the almost eradication of ISIS

They didn't have all that much of an influence. ISIS have been losing territory since the siege of Kobanî, which was from Sept 2014 to early 2015. They had already lost half of their territory and were completely on the back foot by the time Trump took office.

jobbridge4life

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1089876055224184833

So looks like he may be pivoting fully to the hard Christian right. This group has always been his true 'base' but is it a sign of desperation that he is now so obviously trying to court them?

Whatever is said about the Republicans and indeed the post-Trump GOP, the hard core religious right while a sizeable group are not by themselves a sufficient voting block. To my mind this is the most obvious Trump has been in throwing scraps at them, at the most pathetic.

I've sensed weakness before and then he went on for months and grew stronger. This feels a touch different. He hasn't really need to tweet so directly to this group before AFAICT, I am open to correction mind because I don't follow him directly.

dr.fuzzenstein

jobbridge4life wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1089876055224184833

So looks like he may be pivoting fully to the hard Christian right. This group has always been his true 'base' but is it a sign of desperation that he is now so obviously trying to court them?

Whatever is said about the Republicans and indeed the post-Trump GOP, the hard core religious right while a sizeable group are not by themselves a sufficient voting block. To my mind this is the most obvious Trump has been in throwing scraps at them, at the most pathetic.

I've sensed weakness before and then he went on for months and grew stronger. This feels a touch different. He hasn't really need to tweet so directly to this group before AFAICT, I am open to correction mind because I don't follow him directly.

This little exchange on that is gold

Ed Krassenstein
Ed Krassenstein
@EdKrassen
·
5 Std.
When was the last time you read the Bible, Mr. Trump? Was it after you cheated on Melania or before?
Harry T. Stone
Harry T. Stone
@stoneharryt
·
5 Std.
You’ve forgotten, he doesn’t read
Ed Krassenstein
Ed Krassenstein
@EdKrassen
·
5 Std.
There are audio books.
Mark Hildebrandt
Mark Hildebrandt
@markhildo
·
5 Std.
He doesn’t listen either.
Renz 🇵🇭
Renz 🇵🇭
@renzalisasis
·
5 Std.
there are Braille bibles, right?
Neil Davey.
Neil Davey.
@neilbd79
·
5 Std.
He doesn't feel.

Sean.3516

Pedro K wrote: »

I really can't stomach this at all. I can't understand how any human being can sit back and be ok with, even an advocate for, a system where if you can't afford medical care, you just don't get it.

Imagine your own mother or father had a stroke, and needed ongoing therapy to learn how to walk or talk again. You'd be happy with them not getting that therapy if they can't afford it? I think it's disgusting

Why is it always emotional appeals with you guys? Of course I have sympathy with sick people who have no healthcare, I just think it’s immoral to force other people to foot their bill whether they like it or not.

Healthcare is a positive right. This means in order to provide someone with it you impose duties on other people. ie. it’s part funded by other people’s income. There is a doctor somewhere who must carry out this health care at whatever price is dictated to him by the socialized healthcare system. He cannot alienate his own labor the way other people can.

A negative right such as the right to free speech is a negative right. Meaning, it’s provision does not involve you being given anything by the govt. it just means the govt has to stay out of your way and let you say what suits you. “stand a little less between me and me and the sun” as Diogenes said to Alexander the Great.

The notion poor people would get no healtcare under a private system is wrong because people compare the current healthcare market in which poor people are looked after by the govt to a private system without factoring out the fact that the poor people wouldn’t be looked after by the govt anymore.

If you get rid of public care for low income people, you’ve just freed up a new area of the market to private companies. You think these companies would be unwilling to provide some type of healthcare to low income people? It might not cover everything, but it’s better than nothing. And it would be much more efficiently provided by people with a profit incentive than a cumbersome, incompetent govt beaurocracy.

Plus I’m an advocate of people of private citizens helping out people in need in their communities through social groups and charity.

If you dismantle the welfare state along with the massive taxes that support them you’d be surprised at how charitable people can be when they get free reign over exactly how they use their money and they know exactly to who and to where their money as going as opposed to a nameless, faceless machine that gobbles it all up and distributes it on mass as it sees fit.

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The Democrats wouldn't change the law??

Up to 3 weeks ago, the GOP controlled all three branches of government.. How could the Democrats "not change the law"

The issue with separations is that Trump changed the interpretation. Previously, crossing the border was not treated as a felony arrest, so the kids could stay in detention wth their parents.

Under Trump they make a felony arrest and the kids get separated.

So.. Trump changed the approach and directly caused the issue.. Not the Democrats, not even a little bit

Trump did not start this, it was happening under Obama. He tried to stop it by executive order and it struck down in court.

Yes they held all branches but they need extra votes in the senate and the Dems wouldn’t give them.

Chuck Schumer held up his pen in the senate saying that Trump could fix this with a flourish of his pen if he wanted to. But of course he couldn’t have. It would have been struck down just like when Obama tried it.

It’s also good for the legisature to do it's job as opposed to the president just ruling by decree all time.

batgoat

Dear god, that's a pretty depraved idea of healthcare. They mightn't get everything basically translates as those who require expensive treatments to survive mightn't get them. Those who need cancer drugs, mightn't get them. If your leg gets chopped off in an accident, you might get it cauterized.

Privatising an industry can be terrible for it. Eg the English train system has gone up exponentially in price. It suffers from overcrowding, routes have diminished because some areas just aren't worth handling and overall it is a poorer service with less innovation. It's decades behind mainland Europe at this point..

Closer to home, we had Eircome which was effectively gutted by multinationals. Previously Ireland had one of the more advanced landline systems around. You would find lots of exchanges that supported pretty fast speeds for broadband, back in 1999. Our broadband infrastructure ended up so crap because we sold our infrastructure.

oscarBravo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Why is it always emotional appeals with you guys? Of course I have sympathy with sick people who have no healthcare, I just think it’s immoral to force other people to foot their bill whether they like it or not.

That is, with the greatest possible respect, a sociopathic attitude. That's not intended as an insult; it's a statement of objective fact.

If your moral philosophy of positive versus negative rights leads you to a place where you resent the idea of having to spend a small percentage of your income to keep other people from dying, then your moral philosophy is repugnant, and you should be ashamed of it. Again, that's not intended emotively. It is, in the most literal possible meaning of the word, an egregious attitude.

People who reject the social contract should be invited to leave society, because, in essence, that's the logical conclusion of their sociopathy.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

Dear god, that's a pretty depraved idea of healthcare. They mightn't get everything basically translates as those who require expensive treatments to survive mightn't get them. Those who need cancer drugs, mightn't get them. If your leg gets chopped off in an accident, you might get it cauterized.

Privatising an industry can be terrible for it. Eg the English train system has gone up exponentially in price. It suffers from overcrowding, routes have diminished because some areas just aren't worth handling and overall it is a poorer service with less innovation. It's decades behind mainland Europe at this point..

Closer to home, we had Eircome which was effectively gutted by multinationals. Previously Ireland had one of the more advanced landline systems around. You would find lots of exchanges that supported pretty fast speeds for broadband, back in 1999. Our broadband infrastructure ended up so crap because we sold our infrastructure.

The british rail one is up for debate, as the network wasnt privatised and there were stipulations and clawbacks that made profiting hard, but ill leave that one.


On eircom - that is absolute complete toss. I have spent over a decade in telecoms, if that company was left in state hands most of us would likely still be on dialup. High prices, terrible service , overpaid staff with union bullies around kept most innovation out. Eircom was one of the worst examples of how a state run telecoms company could be. It still takes so much red tape to get through the stupid layers of work process control and management go get anything done. They are the worst company in the land to deal with and its because of the legacy , not because of privatisation.

Water John

I have two in my extended family, one's meds are €1,300/month the other €600/month. Lucky not to live in your lassez faire land.

Sean.3516

seamus wrote: »

Generally sheltered, privileged individuals whose entire life has been handed to them on a plate.

The kind of people who believe that poverty is a choice and is caused by laziness, unironically unaware that 90% of their own lifestyle was provided to them by their family's wealth.

God, you people just love impugning the motives of others.

I happen to believe in a private system not because F the poor people. But because they we all might be better off if we got to decide how we allocated our own money which we accrued by our own labor.

And I have no problem giving charity to someone in my community who needs it. Face to face they can look in my eye and there’s an element of accountability and commitment that doesn’t exist in the nameless faceless welfare system. ie. I know exactly who my money is going to and they know that they have a responsibility not to mooch of me.

The best social safety net should be voluntary and privately run for those involved and be as localized as possible.

Water John

So now we can give charity to friendly diseases. Tough luck if you catch something like an STD. Morally bankrupt is the appropriate description.

Eric Cartman

Water John wrote: »

So now we can give charity to friendly diseases. Tough luck if you catch something like an STD. Morally bankrupt is the appropriate description.

would all the people who support social medicine not donate to it ?

like if donating to the welfare state and public healthcare was completely optional , would it not experience no change as everyone is so morally good and wants to help ?

oscarBravo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I happen to believe in a private system not because F the poor people. But because they we all might be better off if we got to decide how we allocated our own money which we accrued by our own labor.

A handful of us might be a lot better off; the vast majority would be a lot worse off.

Guess which group tends to argue for such a system?

And I have no problem giving charity to someone in my community who needs it. Face to face they can look in my eye...

In other words, you want people to beg you for alms.

You'll claim that that's not what you want, but it's precisely what you've described.

batgoat

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Thanks for only quoting the first paragraph of my post and leaving out the other bit where I describe how I support a strong grassroots social fabric where people look after other people in need rather than the govt doing it all from above.

You deliberately quoted me out of context so you could say I was an egregious sociopath, which makes you pretty egregious.

If you think my preferred system wouldnt work then we could at least have and honest debate about that. But if your just gonna call me a sociopath then your an asshole.

It doesn't work, we know it doesn't... I'd prefer to get a cancer treatment regardless of if I'm wealthy/insured or not...... My current medication is at a cost of about 4-5 grand every 2 months, do you think I would get this under your system? I have a chronic illness and I need it to not get seriously ill.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

would all the people who support social medicine not donate to it ?

like if donating to the welfare state and public healthcare was completely optional , would it not experience no change as everyone is so morally good and wants to help ?

Your system idea potentially leaves people in chronic pain or dying for that matter. That's what I prefer a socialised system, a humane society is not dog eat dog.

oscarBravo

batgoat wrote: »

It doesn't work, we know it doesn't... I'd prefer to get a cancer treatment regardless of if I'm wealthy/insured or not...... My current medication is at a cost of about 4-5 grand every 2 months, do you think I would get this under your system? I have a chronic illness and I need it to not get seriously ill.

I wonder why nobody with a chronic illness requiring ongoing doses of expensive medication ever advocates for dismantling the welfare state and replacing it with charity?

Clearly they're just not thinking it through.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

It doesn't work, we know it doesn't... I'd prefer to get a cancer treatment regardless of if I'm wealthy/insured or not...... My current medication is at a cost of about 4-5 grand every 2 months, do you think I would get this under your system? I have a chronic illness and I need it to not get seriously ill.



Your system idea potentially leaves people in chronic pain or dying for that matter. That's what I prefer a socialised system, a humane society is not dog eat dog.

Im not advocating for anything, but Im just asking the question, in a completely free market, it would be possible for people to donate as much as they wanted into a pot to be used to provide pubic medical care to all. If this was the case do you think there would be a shortfall and where would the shortfall come from ?

Water John

This is 19th Century thinking, move on not back.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not advocating for anything, but Im just asking the question, in a completely free market, it would be possible for people to donate as much as they wanted into a pot to be used to provide pubic medical care to all. If this was the case do you think there would be a shortfall and where would the shortfall come from ?

We already know that you advocate for privatising everything. The reality is, people are inherently selfish. Depending on the country, people do go without proper healthcare. People who aren't regularly ill tend to be ignorant of the challenges it poses so hoping that people donate simply doesn't work. Your system abandons the poor. You're a more extreme example than most on this topic, you don't really care about any negative impact.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

We already know that you advocate for privatising everything. The reality is, people are inherently selfish. Depending on the country, people do go without proper healthcare. People who aren't regularly ill tend to be ignorant of the challenges it poses so hoping that people donate simply doesn't work. Your system abandons the poor. You're a more extreme example than most on this topic, you don't really care about any negative impact.

so what youre saying is that the only reason people pay for socialised healthcare is because of government coercion. You want that to continue because of your own personal scenario and it can't be allowed to stop because most people not in that scenario are also selfish and would keep their money, given the choice.

what a bleak view of humanity man.

Sean.3516

oscarBravo wrote: »

A handful of us might be a lot better off; the vast majority would be a lot worse off.

Guess which group tends to argue for such a system? In other words, you want people to beg you for alms.

You'll claim that that's not what you want, but it's precisely what you've described.

I don’t want them to beg to me. I just want a say in who I’m contributing to and how much I’m contributing to them.

There’s a premise here that I need to make clear.

My money that I make through the fruits of my labor is mine. Just as yours is yours.

What I want is to be able to do whatever I like with it. If I want to give charity that’s my business and I should be able to choose exactly who I’m giving it to. I should also have the right not to give charity.

I think a system that forcibly my money and redistributes it to people I don’t know the names off or even care about is immoral.

Pedro K

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Why is it always emotional appeals with you guys? Of course I have sympathy with sick people who have no healthcare, I just think it’s immoral to force other people to foot their bill whether they like it or not.

You guys? I think this is my first post in this thread, and I didn't even say anything about Trump specifically.

You think it's immoral to force other people to foot the healthcare bill. I think it's immoral to deprive somebody in need of medical treatment of that medical treatment because they can't stump up the cash. That is just disgusting.

An emotional appeal is hard to avoid when you're literally talking about depriving people of medical care unless they can afford it. It's an utterly disgusting attitude.