Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
I don't disagree that one should be held solely accountable for one's actions and words. But I do think the level of political discourse has taken a deeper slide thanks to Trump's behavior (sadly). Both can be true.

But yes, we should continue to call out bad behavior when we see it, and hold those who do it solely accountable.

I can agree with that.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [Spiridon Louis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spiridon Louis wrote:
People definitely suck -- this guy happened to be wearing a Trump2020 shirt when the shooting happened, rushed to the school to search for his daughter, who was killed as it turns out, gets ripped on social media for being a Trump supporter, blamed even.

http://www.foxnews.com/...rump-2020-shirt.html

I saw that. It takes a deep, irrational hatred for someone to treat him like that after he lost his daughter, and anyone who does it is vile trash.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [ironmayb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironmayb wrote:
DJRed wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
DJRed wrote:
sphere wrote:
Quote:
Until then, stay focused.


Read the title of the thread, if you're still unclear as to what point I was making. Show me where conservative outlets are blasting him for this garbage. Otherwise, how about you worry about you, and I'll worry about me.


https://www.thewrap.com/...-shooting-survivors/

https://www.redstate.com/...eaker-dinesh-dsouza/

CPAC..."His comments are indefensible."


This, from your second link, speaks to the thread title:

"Trumpism often results in a loss of tact mirroring the demeanor of patient zero, Trump himself."


No, no, and no.

I live in a world where individuals are responsible for their own actions. Regardless of environment, social pressures, and "isms", an individual is the actor and the one who ultimately decides to do or not do something.

Including other factors in the Dsouza discussion:
  1. Lessens the responsibility on Dsouza for having taken this action
  2. Ascribes responsibility to others for actions Dsouza alone has taken
  3. Allows intellectually dishonest and disingenuous attacks on those not related to the incident at hand



People have said disgusting things since the beginning of time. We've blamed Glenn Beck for "rhetoric". We've blamed Bill Clinton for normalizing infidelity. We've blamed rock music, movies, and video games for violence and suicide.

We blame everyone but the individual.

Trump has done and said some awful things. Full stop.

Dsouza is a grown man capable of making his own decisions. He, and he alone, should bear full responsibility for these ridiculous statements. Let's not let him off the hook even a little bit by linking others to it.


you must be new here

Not new, just a hopeful, naïve idiot, I suppose.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yawn, am I the only one here who doesn't care and isn't surprised? D'Souza has said functionally the equivalent for at least a decade and been lionized for it. This just happens to be directed at the wrong people at exactly the wrong time. Thus, he gets thrown to the curb. Maybe everyone should have seen him for what he was long ago, and called it out then.



Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rick_pcfl wrote:
Spiridon Louis wrote:
People definitely suck -- this guy happened to be wearing a Trump2020 shirt when the shooting happened, rushed to the school to search for his daughter, who was killed as it turns out, gets ripped on social media for being a Trump supporter, blamed even.

http://www.foxnews.com/...rump-2020-shirt.html


I saw that. It takes a deep, irrational hatred for someone to treat him like that after he lost his daughter, and anyone who does it is vile trash.

Disgusting and it supports my point.

Best I can tell, the gun used in the killing was purchased one month into Trump's presidency. The life events that made this murder who he is happened long before Trump's presidency. The mistakes made by local authorities/administrators and the FBI have nothing to do with Trump. The killer pulled the trigger.

Reducing this tragedy to Trump assumes removing him will solve, or even reduce mass killings.

It's intellectually void and the easy way out.

Worse, it focuses us on things other than the breakdowns in the process that could have actually impacted this event.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
dave_w wrote:
that's pretty slime-bag low, low enough it makes me wonder about bots, given that the NYT had an article that covered Russian bots putting out incendiary stuff, for either side in the gun debate, within an hour after the shooting took place.


My first thought was Fake News as well. As I said, it's hard to believe an otherwise intelligent, socially functional individual would think for a split second that was a good idea.

It's what I'd do if I were some left wing troll trying to slime D'Souza.

There is an industry of traveling political commentators that engage in this behavior. They go from show to show, They have no special skill, they have no special insight. Their only commodity is notoriety. They are the Kardashians of journalism. The only way they stay relevant is to stay outrageous shit. They are worthless and add nothing to the shows they are on or society in general.

The worst example of this is Coulter. D'Souza is what you get when you can't book Coulter. I'm sure someone can give examples on the left, but I doubt anyone can match Coulter and D'Souza for sheer meanness and heartlessness.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
sphere wrote:
dave_w wrote:
that's pretty slime-bag low, low enough it makes me wonder about bots, given that the NYT had an article that covered Russian bots putting out incendiary stuff, for either side in the gun debate, within an hour after the shooting took place.


My first thought was Fake News as well. As I said, it's hard to believe an otherwise intelligent, socially functional individual would think for a split second that was a good idea.

It's what I'd do if I were some left wing troll trying to slime D'Souza.


There is an industry of traveling political commentators that engage in this behavior. They go from show to show, They have no special skill, they have no special insight. Their only commodity is notoriety. They are the Kardashians of journalism. The only way they stay relevant is to stay outrageous shit. They are worthless and add nothing to the shows they are on or society in general.

The worst example of this is Coulter. D'Souza is what you get when you can't book Coulter. I'm sure someone can give examples on the left, but I doubt anyone can match Coulter and D'Souza for sheer meanness and heartlessness.

Uh, Al Sharpton? You might not recognize the mean and heartlessness because his comments resonant with you.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJRed wrote:
j p o wrote:
sphere wrote:
dave_w wrote:
that's pretty slime-bag low, low enough it makes me wonder about bots, given that the NYT had an article that covered Russian bots putting out incendiary stuff, for either side in the gun debate, within an hour after the shooting took place.


My first thought was Fake News as well. As I said, it's hard to believe an otherwise intelligent, socially functional individual would think for a split second that was a good idea.

It's what I'd do if I were some left wing troll trying to slime D'Souza.


There is an industry of traveling political commentators that engage in this behavior. They go from show to show, They have no special skill, they have no special insight. Their only commodity is notoriety. They are the Kardashians of journalism. The only way they stay relevant is to stay outrageous shit. They are worthless and add nothing to the shows they are on or society in general.

The worst example of this is Coulter. D'Souza is what you get when you can't book Coulter. I'm sure someone can give examples on the left, but I doubt anyone can match Coulter and D'Souza for sheer meanness and heartlessness.


Uh, Al Sharpton? You might not recognize the mean and heartlessness because his comments resonant with you.

See, there you go, one from the left. Don't like Sharpton, at all.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJRed wrote:

Best I can tell, the gun used in the killing was purchased one month into Trump's presidency. The life events that made this murder who he is happened long before Trump's presidency. The mistakes made by local authorities/administrators and the FBI have nothing to do with Trump. The killer pulled the trigger.

Reducing this tragedy to Trump assumes removing him will solve, or even reduce mass killings.

It's intellectually void and the easy way out.

Worse, it focuses us on things other than the breakdowns in the process that could have actually impacted this event.

Dude, no kidding. I literally can't believe there are people blaming this on Trump. I didn't see that one coming.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [Spiridon Louis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spiridon Louis wrote:
DJRed wrote:


Best I can tell, the gun used in the killing was purchased one month into Trump's presidency. The life events that made this murder who he is happened long before Trump's presidency. The mistakes made by local authorities/administrators and the FBI have nothing to do with Trump. The killer pulled the trigger.

Reducing this tragedy to Trump assumes removing him will solve, or even reduce mass killings.

It's intellectually void and the easy way out.

Worse, it focuses us on things other than the breakdowns in the process that could have actually impacted this event.


Dude, no kidding. I literally can't believe there are people blaming this on Trump. I didn't see that one coming.

The circumstances around the shooting are not from Trump. And I have seen people saying that this is what you get when Trump is in office. They are right, but it is also what we got when Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan ... were in office.

But when Trump complains that the FBI didn't follow up on this kid (ignoring the fact that the FBI has plenty of people and didn't take anyone off field duty to chase after the president), does he realize who the FBI reports up through? And when it was that they didn't follow up?

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think it's more likely that Trump actually gets something accomplished in this area (improving background checks, banning bump stocks), whereas the sum total of the Obama Administration's accomplishments was to expand gun owner's rights to carry in national parks. Which is interesting, though my guess is that the gun lobby felt it couldn't give a millimeter on Obama's watch, whereas it might be safer, and good PR, to concede certain things under a "Republican" POTUS.

Either way, sensible action is progress. Take it where and when it comes.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I live in a world where individuals are responsible for their own actions. Regardless of environment, social pressures, and "isms", an individual is the actor and the one who ultimately decides to do or not do something.

I think you mean you want to live in a world like that but since you live in the same world as everyone else, it's probably best to accept that not everyone sees things as you do and move on. When guys post things that ridicule teenagers after they witnessed a slaughter, there are no "but, buts...".

Last edited by: Sanuk: Feb 21, 18 12:18
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
I think it's more likely that Trump actually gets something accomplished in this area (improving background checks, banning bump stocks), whereas the sum total of the Obama Administration's accomplishments was to expand gun owner's rights to carry in national parks. Which is interesting, though my guess is that the gun lobby felt it couldn't give a millimeter on Obama's watch, whereas it might be safer, and good PR, to concede certain things under a "Republican" POTUS.

Either way, sensible action is progress. Take it where and when it comes.

The gun debate and the abortion debate always seem to go the exact same way.

No one will make reasonable concessions because neither side (of the professional lobbyists), in either debate, will stop at reasonable concessions. Actual people could probably come to a resolution on both issues if given the chance. But I think the likelihood of that is slim.

And they aren't necessarily wrong. If pro-gun people agree to some restrictions, you can be sure the anti-gun side won't say, 'ok, that sounds good, we'll stop there.' If pro-choice people agree to a 22 or 24 week limit except in limited circumstances, the pro-life side will not agree that the issue is now settled. So instead, we are left with the mess we have.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
Spiridon Louis wrote:
DJRed wrote:


Best I can tell, the gun used in the killing was purchased one month into Trump's presidency. The life events that made this murder who he is happened long before Trump's presidency. The mistakes made by local authorities/administrators and the FBI have nothing to do with Trump. The killer pulled the trigger.

Reducing this tragedy to Trump assumes removing him will solve, or even reduce mass killings.

It's intellectually void and the easy way out.

Worse, it focuses us on things other than the breakdowns in the process that could have actually impacted this event.


Dude, no kidding. I literally can't believe there are people blaming this on Trump. I didn't see that one coming.


The circumstances around the shooting are not from Trump. And I have seen people saying that this is what you get when Trump is in office. They are right, but it is also what we got when Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan ... were in office.

But when Trump complains that the FBI didn't follow up on this kid (ignoring the fact that the FBI has plenty of people and didn't take anyone off field duty to chase after the president), does he realize who the FBI reports up through? And when it was that they didn't follow up?

I gotta call you out on that. Regardless of what President Trump said about the FBI (and he should not have said it), the FBI admitted themselves they have culpability here. https://www.cnn.com/...i-tipster/index.html

That is an important fact in this discussion. Twisting this FBI stuff to somehow be reflective on Trump takes away from the fact that we had the opportunity and the process in place to prevent this tragedy and we did not. Given that, I can see the argument from those who say we don't need more action, we just need to do what we're supposed to do already.

Strategically and politically, Trump was moronic for wrapping himself and his FBI Russian troubles in this.

Far worse, it allows others to take away from legitimate facts.

Emma Gonzalez passionate (and viral) speech highlights this https://hellogiggles.com/...onzalez-full-speech/:


"And how about we stop blaming the victims for something that was the student's fault, the fault of the people who let him buy the guns in the first place, those at the gun shows, the people who encouraged him to buy accessories for his guns to make them fully automatic, the people who didn't take them away from him when they knew he expressed homicidal tendencies, and I am not talking about the FBI. I'm talking about the people he lived with. I'm talking about the neighbors who saw him outside holding guns.


If the President wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and how it should never have happened and maintain telling us how nothing is going to be done about it, I'm going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association."



No, this one is about the FBI. This one is not about a fully automatic weapon. This one is not about a gun purchased at a gun show. This one is not about a gun purchased illegally. This one is not about Trump or the NRA. This one is about a failure at every single opportunity to interact with this murderer.

"From the interactions that I had with the shooter before the shooting and from the information that I currently know about him, I don’t really know if he was mentally ill. I wrote this before I heard what Delaney said. Delaney said he was diagnosed. I don’t need a psychologist and I don’t need to be a psychologist to know that repealing that regulation was a really dumb idea.


Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was the sole sponsor on this bill that stops the FBI from performing background checks on people adjudicated to be mentally ill and now he’s stating for the record, ‘Well, it’s a shame the FBI isn’t doing background checks on these mentally ill people.’ Well, duh. You took that opportunity away last year."

This is specious. First of all, it does not do what she is insinuating it does. Second, this killer was not in the system anyway and, if he was, the repealing of that regulation would not have impacted him one bit.


However, we just let her go unchecked on these statements. Don't misunderstand, these are legit questions to ask, but they are not the questions to ask in this case.

Ignoring the facts is a recipe for disaster and awful, ineffective legislation.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJRed wrote:
j p o wrote:
Spiridon Louis wrote:
DJRed wrote:


Best I can tell, the gun used in the killing was purchased one month into Trump's presidency. The life events that made this murder who he is happened long before Trump's presidency. The mistakes made by local authorities/administrators and the FBI have nothing to do with Trump. The killer pulled the trigger.

Reducing this tragedy to Trump assumes removing him will solve, or even reduce mass killings.

It's intellectually void and the easy way out.

Worse, it focuses us on things other than the breakdowns in the process that could have actually impacted this event.


Dude, no kidding. I literally can't believe there are people blaming this on Trump. I didn't see that one coming.


The circumstances around the shooting are not from Trump. And I have seen people saying that this is what you get when Trump is in office. They are right, but it is also what we got when Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan ... were in office.

But when Trump complains that the FBI didn't follow up on this kid (ignoring the fact that the FBI has plenty of people and didn't take anyone off field duty to chase after the president), does he realize who the FBI reports up through? And when it was that they didn't follow up?


I gotta call you out on that. Regardless of what President Trump said about the FBI (and he should not have said it), the FBI admitted themselves they have culpability here. https://www.cnn.com/...i-tipster/index.html

That is an important fact in this discussion. Twisting this FBI stuff to somehow be reflective on Trump takes away from the fact that we had the opportunity and the process in place to prevent this tragedy and we did not. Given that, I can see the argument from those who say we don't need more action, we just need to do what we're supposed to do already.

Strategically and politically, Trump was moronic for wrapping himself and his FBI Russian troubles in this.

Far worse, it allows others to take away from legitimate facts.

Emma Gonzalez passionate (and viral) speech highlights this https://hellogiggles.com/...onzalez-full-speech/:



"And how about we stop blaming the victims for something that was the student's fault, the fault of the people who let him buy the guns in the first place, those at the gun shows, the people who encouraged him to buy accessories for his guns to make them fully automatic, the people who didn't take them away from him when they knew he expressed homicidal tendencies, and I am not talking about the FBI. I'm talking about the people he lived with. I'm talking about the neighbors who saw him outside holding guns.


If the President wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and how it should never have happened and maintain telling us how nothing is going to be done about it, I'm going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association."



No, this one is about the FBI. This one is not about a fully automatic weapon. This one is not about a gun purchased at a gun show. This one is not about a gun purchased illegally. This one is not about Trump or the NRA. This one is about a failure at every single opportunity to interact with this murderer.


"From the interactions that I had with the shooter before the shooting and from the information that I currently know about him, I don’t really know if he was mentally ill. I wrote this before I heard what Delaney said. Delaney said he was diagnosed. I don’t need a psychologist and I don’t need to be a psychologist to know that repealing that regulation was a really dumb idea.


Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was the sole sponsor on this bill that stops the FBI from performing background checks on people adjudicated to be mentally ill and now he’s stating for the record, ‘Well, it’s a shame the FBI isn’t doing background checks on these mentally ill people.’ Well, duh. You took that opportunity away last year."

This is specious. First of all, it does not do what she is insinuating it does. Second, this killer was not in the system anyway and, if he was, the repealing of that regulation would not have impacted him one bit.


However, we just let her go unchecked on these statements. Don't misunderstand, these are legit questions to ask, but they are not the questions to ask in this case.

Ignoring the facts is a recipe for disaster and awful, ineffective legislation.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think Trump is responsible. There is no way he knows the day to day goings on at the FBI. But then he claims to when he says they spend too much time on him. Failing to realize apparently that they report up through him.

Poking at his blatant hypocrisy, not meaning to say he is at fault.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How many false positives do you think there are? False positives are the people who post or otherwise use social media to express the same or similar views, and whom according to you should have all been investigated and stopped, despite the fact that they never actually followed through. I'm sure you have the statistics at hand.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
How many false positives do you think there are? False positives are the people who post or otherwise use social media to express the same or similar views, and whom according to you should have all been investigated and stopped, despite the fact that they never actually followed through. I'm sure you have the statistics at hand.

There were no false positives in this case.

This wasn't a guy who made a flip comment on ST about a random school. This was a guy who had multiple identifying interactions with school administrators, local authorities, classmates, social media, and family members.

This was not a guy whose IP address had to be tracked like an episode of CSI. The FBI was provided chapter and verse on this guy.

This was a colossal failure at every level.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJRed wrote:
klehner wrote:
How many false positives do you think there are? False positives are the people who post or otherwise use social media to express the same or similar views, and whom according to you should have all been investigated and stopped, despite the fact that they never actually followed through. I'm sure you have the statistics at hand.

There were no false positives in this case.

This wasn't a guy who made a flip comment on ST about a random school. This was a guy who had multiple identifying interactions with school administrators, local authorities, classmates, social media, and family members.

This was not a guy whose IP address had to be tracked like an episode of CSI. The FBI was provided chapter and verse on this guy.

This was a colossal failure at every level.

I think that's potentially an unfair criticism. We know the tip they were given on this guy. That's the numerator. But what's the denominator? If this was the only such tip the FBI received in the past 6 months then they definitely blew it. But if they get 100 reports like that every week they can't possibly track them all down.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [Spiridon Louis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spiridon Louis wrote:
DJRed wrote:
klehner wrote:
How many false positives do you think there are? False positives are the people who post or otherwise use social media to express the same or similar views, and whom according to you should have all been investigated and stopped, despite the fact that they never actually followed through. I'm sure you have the statistics at hand.


There were no false positives in this case.

This wasn't a guy who made a flip comment on ST about a random school. This was a guy who had multiple identifying interactions with school administrators, local authorities, classmates, social media, and family members.

This was not a guy whose IP address had to be tracked like an episode of CSI. The FBI was provided chapter and verse on this guy.

This was a colossal failure at every level.


I think that's potentially an unfair criticism. We know the tip they were given on this guy. That's the numerator. But what's the denominator? If this was the only such tip the FBI received in the past 6 months then they definitely blew it. But if they get 100 reports like that every week they can't possibly track them all down.

Not my words. The FBI's words:

They were told "Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting." The information should have been assessed as a "potential threat to life," the bureau said.


I will, however, speculate on your point. If the FBI is indeed overwhelmed, they should make the business case, present a request for additional funds, and implement new procedures. It might mean we have to decide on one project versus another. Whatever.

There are many facets to solving this issue and honestly evaluating the FBI's effectiveness is one of them. We can't ignore it.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For your left wing version of D'Souza I give you Toure. He just called the survivors who met with Trump today cowards. Apparently their opposition to the 2nd Amendment was not as strident as Toure's.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PrinceMax wrote:
For your left wing version of D'Souza I give you Toure. He just called the survivors who met with Trump today cowards. Apparently their opposition to the 2nd Amendment was not as strident as Toure's.

You do know he was calling Trump the coward right? He's saying they only let kids in that would not confront him and figuring he's taking the easy way out. He's not calling the kids cowards, he's calling Trump and the administration cowards.

But go on with your outrage.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not true. He said the Trump session with the students "feels like a profile in cowardice: where are the Parkland students who have been so public and strong".
He's clearly criticizing the students.
But go on pretending that liberals hold the higher moral ground.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PrinceMax wrote:
Not true. He said the Trump session with the students "feels like a profile in cowardice: where are the Parkland students who have been so public and strong".
He's clearly criticizing the students.
But go on pretending that liberals hold the higher moral ground.

He's asking why weren't the ones who voiced their outrage so loud invited? Why would he call kids who came, gave their opinions to the President, cowards?

I don't pretend liberals hold the moral high ground. I didn't think being moral was a competition.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: This is where we are now, I guess [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
I'm quite focused, thanks. Mostly, on the larger point that, it seems, literally anything said or done is excusable now in the Trump era, so long as one perceives the underlying premise to be correct.

At some point it's worth holding the enablers accountable.

which enablers are your referring to?
Quote Reply

Prev Next