Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

jochenstacker

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I find that comment offensive in response to someone explaining that the flags are being flown at half- staff as a mark of respect.

By all means one can have views and opinions on the state of U.S. society, but really? As an adjunct to a comment explaining that a process marking respect for dead U.S. citizens is underway- does that really merit the comment you made?

Respect my arse. It's hypocritical and pathetic pandering to the gun lobby whilst crying crocodile tears over dead people that US politicians wouldn't cross the street to piss on.
If they had respect, they would do something instead of offering thoughts and prayers.
I'm sure as far as the families of the dead are concerned, I'm sure they would tell them to stick their thoughts and prayers.
All that show of thoughts and prayers, flags at half-mast, heartfelt speeches is nothing but pissing on the people who have lost loved ones.
They are the ones showing disrespect.
They're the ones safely behind gates and watched over by security, so they get more money stuffed into their backsides by the arms manufacturers whilst they know their children are safe and fcuk the others.
It's a level of contempt and disdain toward the people of the US that borders on the Hunger Games movies.
Again, it's defecating on the ordinary people.
Absolutely nothing more.

AMKC

I see they did not bring Air Force One to Ireland only Air Force Two although the morons at TV3 sorry Virgin news thought it was Air Force One. Maybe they should do there research first. Not that hard to tell the two planes apart. One is a 747 has four engines and is a lot bigger it also has an upstairs deck the other is a medium size long range 757 plane with two engines. They did not bring the ''Beast'' either just a Chevy SUV.

Kermit.de.frog

AMKC wrote: »

I see they did not bring Air Force One to Ireland only Air Force Two although the morons at TV3 sorry Virgin news thought it was Air Force One. Maybe they should do there research first. Not that hard to tell the two planes apart. One is a 747 has four engines and is a lot bigger it also has an upstairs deck the other is a medium size long range 757 plane with two engines. They did not bring the ''Beast'' either just a Chevy SUV.

Air Force One is actually in Shannon at the moment as well.

Professor Moriarty

jochenstacker wrote: »

Respect my arse. It's hypocritical and pathetic pandering to the gun lobby whilst crying crocodile tears over dead people that US politicians wouldn't cross the street to piss on.
If they had respect, they would do something instead of offering thoughts and prayers.
I'm sure as far as the families of the dead are concerned, I'm sure they would tell them to stick their thoughts and prayers.
All that show of thoughts and prayers, flags at half-mast, heartfelt speeches is nothing but pissing on the people who have lost loved ones.
They are the ones showing disrespect.

It's lip service. The NRA has the legislators by the short and curlies.

Stop moaning ffs

Whatever plane POTUS is on is Air force one it seems. Apparently there are two of the big 747s Kitted out and painted exactly the same and it’s unusual POTUS would travel on the smaller ones. But if he’s on board it’s designsted AF1

But one of them was definitely on the apron at Shannon and arrived ahead of trump much earlier this morning. Pics all over twitter of it parked. You’d wonder why.

marno21

AMKC wrote: »

I see they did not bring Air Force One to Ireland only Air Force Two although the morons at TV3 sorry Virgin news thought it was Air Force One. Maybe they should do there research first. Not that hard to tell the two planes apart. One is a 747 has four engines and is a lot bigger it also has an upstairs deck the other is a medium size long range 757 plane with two engines. They did not bring the ''Beast'' either just a Chevy SUV.

Trump arrived on a C32 (757) as the usual VC25 (747) would not be able to take off from Southampton airport due to the runway being too short. He'll be conducting the rest of his business on the VC25 which is at Shannon now also

hotmail.com

tonycascarino wrote:

Exactly. Just like the Irish loons who get angry over a President of a completely different country who has done absolutely nothing bad to our country.

Oh so true.

It's cringey Irish people taking political sides over US issues that don't affect us.

Igotadose

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh so true.

It's cringey Irish people taking political sides over US issues that don't affect us.

Right, protest is wrong when they're protesting my hero. What bollox.

As for whether he's done something bad to Ireland, well, he's trying by cheering on Brexit and encouraging a hard Brexit. Brexit will be bad for Ireland, Trump's giving it some oxygen with his prattling on. If he gave a rats for the UK, and Ireland, he'd STFU about Brexit and the Tory's next PM. But he's damaging the discourse by mindlessly chiming in.

hotmail.com

Igotadose wrote:

Right, protest is wrong when they're protesting my hero. What bollox.

You think anything less than criticism means I'm a Trump supporter.

This is also cringe.

Irish people being Trump or anti Trump supporters. We are not American.

Laois_Man

aloyisious wrote: »

Just thinking back on Boris and Nigel about Brexit being great for Britain, and the trouble Boris is in now about his Brexit campaign quotes [£350 Million a week sent to EU - lets fund our NHS instead] it would profit the remainers to ask Boris what he thinks of Don's Brexit trade-deal idea. Hell, it might even profit Boris in the conservative race [though people would see through it as opportunistic] if he went after Nigel about his friendship with Don.

It's strange how Boris' old comments about The Donald don't seem to get mentioned much these days!


https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1134398873328398336

listermint

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh so true.

It's cringey Irish people taking political sides over US issues that don't affect us.

His white house no doubt on his advisors word had Ireland put on trade threats list about two weeks ago

I'm amazed daily how limited peoples knowledge is on topics they choose to speak about.

AMKC

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Whatever plane POTUS is on is Air force one it seems. Apparently there are two of the big 747s Kitted out and painted exactly the same and it’s unusual POTUS would travel on the smaller ones. But if he’s on board it’s designsted AF1

But one of them was definitely on the apron at Shannon and arrived ahead of trump much earlier this morning. Pics all over twitter of it parked. You’d wonder why.

it’s unusual POTUS would travel on the smaller ones.

Not that unusual. At home the POTUS would use AF2 for short trips and AF1 for long ones. It is just unusual on an international trip but as another poster pointed out there was a reason for it and it makes sense.

20Cent

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I find that comment offensive in response to someone explaining that the flags are being flown at half- staff as a mark of respect.

By all means one can have views and opinions on the state of U.S. society, but really? As an adjunct to a comment explaining that a process marking respect for dead U.S. citizens is underway- does that really merit the comment you made?

There will be another mass shooting very soon and nothing will be done, thats the point being made.

Midlife

Manic Moran wrote: »

And despite the famous laws, in Australia today, four killed in a spree shooting by a convicted felon, on parole and wearing an ankle monitor, and using a weapon banned 13 years ago.

What does the logic trail indicate?

Healthy dose of conformation bias there. You're basing the success of a decades old policy on an single incident from the other day.

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

II. Evidence the Buyback Saved Lives
For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present),
there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25
(range .16 to .33).

I've no clue as to how a rational person can possibly argue that getting rid of guns WON'T reduce gun violence. It's like saying getting rid of cars WON'T reduce car crashes.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh so true.

It's cringey Irish people taking political sides over US issues that don't affect us.

America has had ties with this country, both cultural and political for decades, it shouldn't be surprising that we take an interest. Arguably the (admittedly stalled) peace process owes its existence to the diplomatic work done by George Mitchel & co. And fascination is equally forgiveable when the President is such a boisterous, argumentative figure who makes Bush Jr's gaffs look discreet. He's the first Social Media President, cut the rubber neckers some slack. Both our immediate cultural neighbours are going through outlandish political phases

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote:

America has had ties with this country, both cultural and political for decades, it shouldn't be surprising that we take an interest. Arguably the (admittedly stalled) peace process owes its existence to the diplomatic work done by George Mitchel & co. And fascination is equally forgiveable when the President is such a boisterous, argumentative figure who makes Bush Jr's gaffs look discreet. He's the first Social Media President, cut the rubber neckers some slack. Both our immediate cultural neighbours are going through outlandish political phases

There's taking an interest and then taking sides.

That's the point I'm making. Its cringey Irish people getting so excited about Trump on either 'side'.

Ronan|Raven

Just after watching part of his sit down with Leo. As he starts to ramble on about our wall and border and it will work out very well.. very well it will work out.

What in the name of god is he on about? Does he even have the slightest idea what is going around him? Any other US president goes on about a wall on the Irish border and the USA a signatory to the Good Friday agreement and you would have people spitting their tea out. This oaf says it and no heed is taken!

Stop moaning ffs

hotmail.com wrote: »

There's taking an interest and then taking sides.

That's the point I'm making. Its cringey Irish people getting so excited about Trump on either 'side'.

You were defending him and his policies pretty strongly only two or three pages ago.

listermint

hotmail.com wrote: »

There's taking an interest and then taking sides.

That's the point I'm making. Its cringey Irish people getting so excited about Trump on either 'side'.

Not really, he is non friendly to Irish interests.

TomOnBoard

jochenstacker wrote: »

Respect my arse. It's hypocritical and pathetic pandering to the gun lobby whilst crying crocodile tears over dead people that US politicians wouldn't cross the street to piss on.
If they had respect, they would do something instead of offering thoughts and prayers.
I'm sure as far as the families of the dead are concerned, I'm sure they would tell them to stick their thoughts and prayers.
All that show of thoughts and prayers, flags at half-mast, heartfelt speeches is nothing but pissing on the people who have lost loved ones.
They are the ones showing disrespect.
They're the ones safely behind gates and watched over by security, so they get more money stuffed into their backsides by the arms manufacturers whilst they know their children are safe and fcuk the others.
It's a level of contempt and disdain toward the people of the US that borders on the Hunger Games movies.
Again, it's defecating on the ordinary people.
Absolutely nothing more.

WoW! What an amazingly vitriolic response to a comment that abhors latching onto and hijacking peoples' pain in the face of massive bereavement just to make a point that could have been made any number of days before and after those deaths, and in any number of ways, without making some (or at least, one - being myself) sickened by the lazy way their deaths were used!

And I suspect you and I both have lots of areas of agreement in abhorrence of Trump's regime. However, I don't go along with every single race to the bottom being the only way to deal with this massive threat to a world that holds "normal" views and ways to navigate them.

Professor Moriarty

Laois_Man wrote: »

It's strange how Boris' old comments about The Donald don't seem to get mentioned much these days!


https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1134398873328398336

It isn't often that I find myself agreeing with Bojo.

TomOnBoard

AMKC wrote: »

it’s unusual POTUS would travel on the smaller ones.

Not that unusual. At home the POTUS would use AF2 for short trips and AF1 for long ones. It is just unusual on an international trip but as another poster pointed out there was a reason for it and it makes sense.

As previously explained, whatever plane the President is on uses the designation Air Force One. The physical aircraft is irrelevant to that.

TomOnBoard

20Cent wrote: »

There will be another mass shooting very soon and nothing will be done, thats the point being made.

Your point may well be valid, BUT it is entirely irrelevant to the families of those who died in Virginia Beach, and THAT is all that the half- mast flying of the flag is intended to deal with: i.e. the pain and bereavement of those families, and NOT the pain and bereavement of any/all other families in similar positions, either in the past or the future.

I wish people would stop trying to re-invent and re-interpret an age-old ceremonial demonstration that is intended to recognise people who have died for and on behalf of the country in a way in which that country believes ought to be so recognised.

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed the decrease is welcome and the intervention is a key factor. However, from your Guardian article:

California has the strongest gun laws in the country, and it’s enacted more than 30 new gun control laws since 2009 alone, according to Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks gun legislation nationwide.

And if you look at the laws since 2009, you'll see that they are generally speaking cosmetic things of little practical effect, though the ban on modern pistols is not one of them (Just means fewer safety features on the guns which are permitted). It would not surprise me that a gun control group is attributing partial success to the gun laws, without demonstrating cause.

The CDC’s Wonder database shows that in 2017, 39,773 people in the US lost their lives at the point of a gun, marking the onward march of firearm fatalities in a country renowned for its lax approach to gun controls. When adjusted for age fluctuations, that represents a total of 12 deaths per 100,000 people – up from 10.1 in 2010 and the highest rate since 1996.

If there were less guns then there would be less gun deaths.

Maybe. But since more people, per capita, had guns 20 years ago, why were there not more killings back then? 41% of households had guns in 1996, it's about 31% today. Is it perhaps because people just weren't inclined to shoot each other and themselves as much as they are today? Why not address that inclination as the primary problem? After all, it's the primary thing which has changed.

Besides, subtract suicides (over 55%, I believe), gang violence (FBI figures estimates somewhere under 50% of murders), justifiable homicides (about 2%) and focus on accidents and common criminal victims. One's per capita firearm survival rate tends to go up a lot when one isn't involved in criminal activity and doesn't wish to kill oneself.

In any case, since the genie isn't going back into the bottle, why not focus on what can have a practical effect, as demonstrated by both theory and practice?

Stop moaning ffs

Aren’t there usually two or three fighter jets accompany AF1 when overseas?
Didn’t hear any reports of them today.

Did see a pic of AF1 coming in low over Clare

TomOnBoard

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Aren’t there usually two or three fighter jets accompany AF1 when overseas?
Didn’t hear any reports of them today.

Did see a pic of AF1 coming in low over Clare

I can't comment on the number of fighter jets, but I was actually triggered by the fact that there was a lone Marine-1 Helo shown between SNN and Doonbeg. I thought that, for security purposed they usually fly in pairs or threes to do a 3-card monte that would protect POTUS from SAMs??

Nah! I'm probably waaaay too invested in Mark Greaney and Tom Clancy novels...

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

And if you look at the laws since 2009, you'll see that they are generally speaking cosmetic things of little practical effect, though the ban on modern pistols is not one of them (Just means fewer safety features on the guns which are permitted). It would not surprise me that a gun control group is attributing partial success to the gun laws, without demonstrating cause.

Which is a very good argument for stricter gun laws.

Maybe. But since more people, per capita, had guns 20 years ago, why were there not more killings back then? 41% of households had guns in 1996, it's about 31% today. Is it perhaps because people just weren't inclined to shoot each other and themselves as much as they are today? Why not address that inclination as the primary problem? After all, it's the primary thing which has changed.

Besides, subtract suicides (over 55%, I believe), gang violence (FBI figures estimates somewhere under 50%), justifiable homicides (about 2%) and focus on accidents and common criminal victims. One's per capita survival rate tends to go up a lot when one isn't involved in criminal activity and doesn't wish to kill oneself.

In any case, since the genie isn't going back into the bottle, and

There is no doubt that the nature of society has changed. And the genie will not go back into the bottle considering there is a gun for every man, woman and child in the US. However, these are not arguments against stricter gun laws.

Perhaps there would be less suicides if the means of death wasn't so readily available? In 2016, 11,000 people were shot to death in the US. The US has the highest rate of murder/manslaughter in the developed world. The fact remains, if there were less guns, there would be less dead people.

aloyisious

Laois_Man wrote: »

It's strange how Boris' old comments about The Donald don't seem to get mentioned much these days!


https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1134398873328398336

Its so different to the buffoon act he puts on every so often, more apposite to a politician taking advantage of [without even a mention of] the current mayor of London V Don slagging row.

eire4

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Poor people have got poorer under Trump.

I don't think the lives of people whos skin colour is not white have got any better or safer to put it mildly.

Midlife

Manic Moran wrote: »

In any case, since the genie isn't going back into the bottle, why not focus on what can have a practical effect, as demonstrated by both theory and practice?

Why isn't the genie going back in the bottle?

People can envisage building thhousands of miles of game of thrones-esuqe wall along their southern border but you can simply make assault weapons illegal?

Step 1: Introduce gun licenses

Step 2: Make assault weapons illegal and have mandatory buyback

Anyone found to be in posession of an assault weapon at a later stage loses their gun license.

Of course some people won't take heed but at least they'll stop making them. They'll gradually dry up until the last ones are in the hand of gun enthisiasists who never returned them. Ammo for them will be scarce so none of your responsibole gun owners are going to do anything but keep them strictly for themselves.