Donald Trump

[Abby Normal]

lesser of two evils-now that's the truth!!
Trumps a maniac, but lets face the truth with Hillary-she says all the right things, just like her husband, but shes rotten to the core.
I think she wont be indicted, but the FBI report WILL be scathing and rightfully so, and it will not be good for her either way.

I'll probably be staying home election night.

Id also be remiss if I didn't add I was absolutely disgusted with the president coming out and attacking trump, politicizing this from a standing president when he should have been emphasizing the tragedy, and how to stop this crap from happening. worse speech from a president ive ever seen.

The politics in this country are going to hell in a hand basket, and most of leaders in this country suck.

[Svensson]

Tbh, I thought that he exactly talked about how this should be addressed. There were multiple factors here and he addressed them one by one:

- Military operation against ISIS. He laid out what had been done, how progress is going and what he is doing next.
- As preventing such attacks is a "100%-business", each cog in the wheel needs to operate at 100% and therefore reminded the Senate that they have still not approved the Deputy CIA-director more than 14 months after being put forward.
- Most countries who had major mass-shootings like the US regularly does, react with stricter gun-controls (UK and Australia for example) and the number of gun-related deaths decreases. So better gun control should be on the table. Only back in December did the Senate block a new bill that would ban terror suspects like Omar Mateen from buying guns. This should at least be looked at again.
- Basically, and I agree with that, mass-shootings happened before ISIS existed and will continue to exist long after ISIS are gone if nothing else happens.
- He explained in detail why he does not want to use the term "radical Islam", that he believes it is counter-productive and that it aids ISIS by giving them recognition for representing Islam. Perfectly logical IMO.

Yes, his tone was angry. Personally, I have no issue with his tone as the situation justifies his tone, in my opinion. But let's disregard his tone, I do agree with the content of his speech.

[Ginger]

Id also be remiss if I didn't add I was absolutely disgusted with the president coming out and attacking trump, politicizing this from a standing president when he should have been emphasizing the tragedy, and how to stop this crap from happening. worse speech from a president ive ever seen.

I had honestly not expected even Obama to engage in that form of gutter politics.

I was quite struck with the contrast between Clinton and Trump as well. Clinton gave a carefully scripted speech designed to sound brave and high-minded, while calling for calm and 'unity'. It's the sort of staple speech a politician uses after a natural disaster. Trump, on the other hand, identified the problem, and proposed solutions, like a businessman. No doubt at all which one I'm voting for.

[Svensson]

So no more mass-shootings once Trump has implemented implemented policies?

[Abby Normal]

Tbh, I thought that he exactly talked about how this should be addressed. There were multiple factors here and he addressed them one by one:

- Military operation against ISIS. He laid out what had been done, how progress is going and what he is doing next.
- As preventing such attacks is a "100%-business", each cog in the wheel needs to operate at 100% and therefore reminded the Senate that they have still not approved the Deputy CIA-director more than 14 months after being put forward.
- Most countries who had major mass-shootings like the US regularly does, react with stricter gun-controls (UK and Australia for example) and the number of gun-related deaths decreases. So better gun control should be on the table. Only back in December did the Senate block a new bill that would ban terror suspects like Omar Mateen from buying guns. This should at least be looked at again.
- Basically, and I agree with that, mass-shootings happened before ISIS existed and will continue to exist long after ISIS are gone if nothing else happens.
- He explained in detail why he does not want to use the term "radical Islam", that he believes it is counter-productive and that it aids ISIS by giving them recognition for representing Islam. Perfectly logical IMO.

Yes, his tone was angry. Personally, I have no issue with his tone as the situation justifies his tone, in my opinion. But let's disregard his tone, I do agree with the content of his speech.

His speech is at best useless rhetoric, at worst using this tragedy for political reasons.

- Military operation against ISIS. He laid out what had been done, how progress is going and what he is doing next.

All talk no action. He has been absolutely ineffective against ISIS, or ISIL, as he calls it, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

- As preventing such attacks is a "100%-business", each cog in the wheel needs to operate at 100% and therefore reminded the Senate that they have still not approved the Deputy CIA-director more than 14 months after being put forward.

Who the ef cares about the freaken DEPUTY CIA director at a time like this!?!The DEPUTY Cia director!?!? More political BS!!Not the time or place to bring this up.
-

Most countries who had major mass-shootings like the US regularly does, react with stricter gun-controls (UK and Australia for example) and the number of gun-related deaths decreases. So better gun control should be on the table. Only back in December did the Senate block a new bill that would ban terror suspects like Omar Mateen from buying guns. This should at least be looked at again.

Exactly! the president has been totally ineffective at stopping the mass shootings, let alone getting any kind of real gun control passed.

- He explained in detail why he does not want to use the term "radical Islam", that he believes it is counter-productive and that it aids ISIS by giving them recognition for representing Islam. Perfectly logical IMO.

The argument that calling them radical Islam, or Islamist extremists, or Islamic terrorists because it plays into their hands, or might anger them or whatever is pretty pathetic. They hate and want to kill anyone who isn't them no matter what-surely hes smart enough to know that?
and anyway, I really don't care what he calls them, as long as he would DO something. again all talk no action.

Yes, his tone was angry. Personally, I have no issue with his tone as the situation justifies his tone, in my opinion. But let's disregard his tone, I do agree with the content of his speech

except the angry tone was all self defensive and aimed at trump/his critics, when he should have been focused on the tragedy of the people killed and their families and what the hell to do to prevent.

The "content" of his speech is Total empty and useless rhetoric for a lame duck president whos arse is out the door, and only trying to preserve some form of legacy, while not actually doing anything, and at the same time using it for political reasons to help push his party's candidate forward while attacking his party's rival. this from a standing president.

sad.

[Abby Normal]

So no more mass-shootings once Trump has implemented implemented policies?

that's actually a great question. If trump is elected and implements his policies, perhaps it might stop some of the Islamic extremist hate for the west terrorist killings. but as trump is pro gun I don't think that it will stop the other types of mass shootings. That will only happen when we get out of the middle ages and ban all hand guns and assault type weapons, except for military and law enforcement.

[Admin]

We are closing this thread for a period of time. We currently don't wish to have to monitor threads of this nature. It has nothing to do with anything any poster has written and is down purely to our own inability to be reasonable on this subject right now and our purely emotional reaction to the events being discussed.

Once again, this is our issue, it has nothing to do with anyone on this thread.

Sorry for the inconvenience and we will re-open it in a few days.

[Karl]

Id also be remiss if I didn't add I was absolutely disgusted with the president coming out and attacking trump, politicizing this from a standing president when he should have been emphasizing the tragedy,

It is rather the other way around - Trump was the one politicizing by attacking the political opposition, and showing no empathy - no empathy - whatsoever. Not showing support for the victims at all, but using it in defence of his anti-Muslim agenda. Obama called him out on it, and in my view it was completely appropriate to do so.

and how to stop this crap from happening.

That's what Obama has been trying ever since he got in office. He is the only president so far to actually try and make mass shootings less likely, as far as I'm aware, by lobbying for stricter gun control.

Exactly! the president has been totally ineffective at stopping the mass shootings, let alone getting any kind of real gun control passed.

He does not have dictatorial powers. Getting any form of stricter gun control passed is extremely difficult in the US, but at least Obama has tried. What other president has been striving for stricter gun control? I don't think it is fair to single Obama out for not succeeding where no one has succeeded (perhaps not even tried) before him.

[Svensson]

Assault weapons were briefly banned from 1995 to 2004. Would be interesting to know what triggered the original ban and what triggered its repeal.

[Karl]

Assault weapons were briefly banned from 1995 to 2004. Would be interesting to know what triggered the original ban and what triggered its repeal.

Hm. I thought they were still banned. But it is surprising that they were banned at all, given that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people can act as militia, and for that they would have to be able to procure weapons of a certain military quality. Sawed-off shotguns were successfully banned, I believe, following a court decision which ruled that banning them did not violate the 2nd amendment, as such weapons were not necessary for a well regulated militia.

[DBass]

The assault weapons ban was passed as a result of a mass school shooting in Stockton, CA in 1993. Thirty-four children and one teacher were shot. Five children died.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaul..._United_States

[Svensson]

Okay thanks. So it seems that the ban was set for 10 years to begin with and was never actually extended or made permanent.

[Abby Normal]

It is rather the other way around - Trump was the one politicizing by attacking the political opposition, and showing no empathy - no empathy - whatsoever. Not showing support for the victims at all, but using it in defence of his anti-Muslim agenda. Obama called him out on it, and in my view it was completely appropriate to do so.



That's what Obama has been trying ever since he got in office. He is the only president so far to actually try and make mass shootings less likely, as far as I'm aware, by lobbying for stricter gun control.



He does not have dictatorial powers. Getting any form of stricter gun control passed is extremely difficult in the US, but at least Obama has tried. What other president has been striving for stricter gun control? I don't think it is fair to single Obama out for not succeeding where no one has succeeded (perhaps not even tried) before him.

bush-1989

Obama's lack of balls on protecting Americans home and abroad is appalling.
hes lame duck and has been since his second term. and I voted for him first time around but since his second term hes been just floating by, not trying to harm his "legacy".

But believe me its not just him-both sides (congress) are crap, and no wonder the American people are sick of the do nothing pay check stealing politicians, and a lot going with someone like trump.

and now congress has punted on 4 bills for gun control.

sad.

there will be more mass killings and there will be another 911 type incident(isis or al quada etc.) if US leaders don't start getting off there arses, being REAL leaders and do something about it!

[Karl]

bush-1989

Obama's lack of balls on protecting Americans home and abroad is appalling.
hes lame duck and has been since his second term. and I voted for him first time around but since his second term hes been just floating by, not trying to harm his "legacy".

Lack of balls? He has lost a lot of support in his lobbying for stricter gun control, as he knew he would. Why are you singling him out, anyway? If, by "bush- 1989" you are referring to the assault weapons ban in California, Bush had nothing to do with it. Obama is certainly the first American president I have heard to actually make speeches advocating gun control, and that is one of the best ways to lose support in the US. He has, however, no legislative power. That would be the Congress, and they have opposed Obama on this issue.

But believe me its not just him-both sides (congress) are crap, and no wonder the American people are sick of the do nothing pay check stealing politicians, and a lot going with someone like trump.

Trump is a lot of hot air, who doesn't even seem to know about the checks and balances. He is the poster boy for a populist politician, saying whatever he thinks will win him the most support, and with a remarkable ability to flip-flop with no shame whatsoever. At the same time, he has no refinement and would be a diplomatic catastrophe of unprecedented proportions if elected. But because he has no refinement, his supporters think that he "tells it like it is". Of course, the only reason they think that is because he's saying stuff they happen to agree with. That is always the case when people say that such-and-such "tells it like it is". It is almost charmingly naive.

and now congress has punted on 4 bills for gun control.

sad.

And who championed those bills, and berated Congress for blocking these bills?

there will be more mass killings and there will be another 911 type incident(isis or al quada etc.) if US leaders don't start getting off there arses, being REAL leaders and do something about it!

Terrorist activities and gun control are two separate issues. Actual acts of terror from actual terrorist organisations are carefully planned, and will take into consideration whatever measures are in place to stop them. The best way to fight terror is to not provoke it in the first place. ISIS could not exist except for the power vacuum created by the war in Iraq.

[Pcdunn]

To get back to Donald Trump, this article by a psychologist makes a comparison between Trump and one of our most Populist presidents, Andrew Jackson.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/