The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Well..was Obama responsible for the Congressional baseball game shooter?

Both sides have nuts. Both sides have zealots. Equal amounts on both sides.

To suggest otherwise is to wave the flag blindly of your chosen side.

One side seems to have a lot more nuts of late. And most of the recent mass shooters or domestic terrorists have background of far-right politics.

As for Obama and Trump, only one called for violence and incarceration of political opponents.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Well..was Obama responsible for the Congressional baseball game shooter?

Both sides have nuts. Both sides have zealots. Equal amounts on both sides.

To suggest otherwise is to wave the flag blindly of your chosen side.

So mailing pipe bombs is cool since there was that one dude who shot up the Republican Congressional baseball practice.

Sweet logic that "both sides" also applies to violent responses to political rhetoric.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

So mailing pipe bombs is cool since there was that one dude who shot up the Republican Congressional baseball practice.

Sweet logic that "both sides" also applies to violent responses to political rhetoric.

No. And I never said it was cool.


But you guys are all patting each other on the back having a massive left wing circle jerk, LOOK ANOTHER BAD RIGHT WINGER. stroke,stroke,stroke,stroke,stroke



That will never solve anything. It just further draws the line and digs the trench. Congrats.


What I am saying is simply that we need reform and change and open civil dialogue not name calling and blame sharing.

[RainMaker]

Domestic terrorism is actually up quite a bit in the past few years. It had become incredibly rare last decade. And the trend has dramatically shifted toward more right-wing attacks. In fact, most of the attacks in 2017 were far-right motivated.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

What I am saying is simply that we need reform and change and open civil dialogue not name calling and blame sharing.

Have you seen who the President is? Going to have to look at the top to see who is drawing that line. You know, the person calling people who disagree with him enemies and calling for their incarceration or violence to be done to them.

I don't have a side in this. I'm not really a liberal or conservative. I just know that a lot of the terrorist attacks in this country of late are coming from his supporters. Maybe his rhetoric has something to do with this as there wasn't a flurry of left-wing terrorism under Obama. Or right-wing terrorism under Bush. In fact, the numbers were incredibly low during their times in office.

[RainMaker]

If anyone wants to look, here is the Global Terrorism Database.

Global Terrorism Database

Worldwide terrorism has actually been down a lot in recent years. Just up in our country.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

No. And I never said it was cool.


But you guys are all patting each other on the back having a massive left wing circle jerk, LOOK ANOTHER BAD RIGHT WINGER. stroke,stroke,stroke,stroke,stroke



That will never solve anything. It just further draws the line and digs the trench. Congrats.


What I am saying is simply that we need reform and change and open civil dialogue not name calling and blame sharing.

jesus christ man, hold some dignity. The argument that the president can be completely a part of the blame here is an argument based on objective fact. It has nothing to do with masturbation. I know. Not once has anything trump related come up in my masturbation menu. I mean, ffs, strip it down to what happened, who was responsible for the direct act, and what lead up to this point, and a solid case can be made. It's far beyond simple partisan politics, like well, my guy isn't as bad as your guy. In fact, that argument that you're making, is a political one. Are there bad people who also support left leaning policies? Sure. There, happy now? Do those people suck and are they dangerous assholes? Yes. Does that mean that this entire conversation can now go ahead and be based on objective fact?

[CU Tiger]

I don't like Trump. He isn't "my guy".

That isn't my point.


My point is, duder sending bombs around is a POS, whack job. I dont care who he votes for. Or what soccer team he pulls for. Or what religion he may claim. He is a whack job.


But maybe its really soccer's fault. Soccer has such a violent rhetoric and so many soccer riots. Let me go pull some stats. That will help things.
(In case you missed it his van was covered in Soccer stuff as well)


This is just another weird Red herring attention distraction. Just like the caravan. Lets all talk about some crazy BS and ignore the real issues.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

What I am saying is simply that we need reform and change and open civil dialogue not name calling and blame sharing.

I agree - however that is difficult when the current president is actively shouting down anyone who disagrees with him by insulting them, their intelligence and in the cases of the media encouraging supporters to be violent towards them.

There are very few political figures who do this sort of thing in the US - unfortunately Trump is one of them and gets a lot of air-time.

Until he loses that platform I don't see a bi-partisan solution presenting itself or civil dialog occurring, simply put if it does it would hurt his chances of continuing in power ... he requires division and fear in order to retain his position as this motivates his base to vote.

This is why he claims there are 'left wing mobs' despite there being no evidence of such, its why he is shouting about an immigrant caravan when the last one had pretty much evaporated by the time it reached the border (and most of the people in that prior one applied legitimately and got in fairly) ...

PS - I agree the bomber was a whack job first and foremost and don't left/right politics for his actions - he had mental health issues. That being said however the continued rhetoric of hate is likely to encourage people who are mentally unstable to act. The fact that Trumps response to the bombings has been to blame the press for them is beyond my level of comprehension.

[JPhillips]

Q: "Would you yourself pledge to tone down the rhetoric for the next few days?"

President Trump: "I think I've been toned down, if you want to know the truth. I could really tone it up because as you know the media's been extremely unfair to me and to the Republican Party."

And Rush is telling his listeners that the bomber is a Dem plant.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I agree - however that is difficult when the current president is actively shouting down anyone who disagrees with him by insulting them, their intelligence and in the cases of the media encouraging supporters to be violent towards them.

There are very few political figures who do this sort of thing in the US - unfortunately Trump is one of them and gets a lot of air-time.

Until he loses that platform I don't see a bi-partisan solution presenting itself or civil dialog occurring, simply put if it does it would hurt his chances of continuing in power ... he requires division and fear in order to retain his position as this motivates his base to vote.
:
:
PS - I agree the bomber was a whack job first and foremost and don't left/right politics for his actions - he had mental health issues. That being said however the continued rhetoric of hate is likely to encourage people who are mentally unstable to act. The fact that Trumps response to the bombings has been to blame the press for them is beyond my level of comprehension.

I agree with this.

[Edward64]

Possibly another Michael Rotondo.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...4bbc1f96ccd945

Bomb suspect Cesar Sayoc had been kicked out by his parents, so he has living in the van that we have seen in pictures today, according to a law enforcement official.

By the way, what's good old Mike doing now ... (still a bum)

Evicted son Michael Rotondo claims trademarked name on his own website | syracuse.com

So it's no surprise that Rotondo, 31, best known for being evicted from his parents' Camillus house, has decided to launch a website about his court battles.

"In the Matters of Mr. Rotondo" launched quietly in recent weeks, providing his take on his court fight against paying child support for his 8-year-old son. Many legal documents include his opinion that the orders are "unlawful."

Rotondo added the "TM" acronym to his website, apparently claiming that either his name, or his website's name, is a trademark. Unlike an "R" symbol, the TM does not mean the name has been registered.

The site has an accompanying Twitter page. As of this morning, he had two Twitter followers.

Evicted son Michael Rotondo takes child support fight to U.S. Supreme Court | syracuse.com

Somewhere, some clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. is dealing with Michael Rotondo.

Rotondo, 31, who made international fame for being evicted from his parents' house in Camillus, has filed three separate petitions to the country's highest court in the past year, according to Supreme Court records.

They all surround Rotondo's insistence that he can't afford to pay child support to his 8-year-old son.

[Izulde]

"As of this morning, he had two Twitter followers." That made me laugh out loud in the office.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Possibly another Michael Rotondo.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...4bbc1f96ccd945

But was that van down by the river?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But maybe its really soccer's fault. Soccer has such a violent rhetoric and so many soccer riots. Let me go pull some stats. That will help things.
(In case you missed it his van was covered in Soccer stuff as well)

If he had mailed the bombs to soccer teams and their supporters, I might agree.

He mailed them to the people his hero called enemies of the people. People that his hero said should be locked up in jail for daring oppose him.

When the actions line up with the rhetoric, it's not hard to point fingers.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

My point is, duder sending bombs around is a POS, whack job. I dont care who he votes for. Or what soccer team he pulls for. Or what religion he may claim. He is a whack job.

Do you seriously think he would have chosen those particular targets absent of Trumps rhetoric?

[Julio Riddols]

The problem I have with the two sides argument is that the candidates the Republicans are putting forward in many cases are hardcore followers of the whole Trump style, and all that tells me is that the party leadership is pretty ok with their whole platform being trashed in favor of fear mongering liars with questionable morals and pasts.

Until I see a Republican candidate with some modicum of decorum, some idea of civility, a sliver of sincerity put forward, I know which party gives a shit about the country and which party only gives a shit about winning at any cost. It is indescribably unsettling how many people have come out of the woodwork and revealed themselves to be complete fuckwads since the country made the mistake of electing this "president".

If you want to distance yourself from that, then continuing to support the party which is doing this is a bad way of showing it. The current Republican situation needs to be thrown out completely and replaced with an entirely new breed of politicians who actually want to work to improve things instead of simply screaming "lock her up" and otherwise planting fear of liberals deeper in the minds of the simpletons who are blindly devoted to following the party.

The shit I have seen recently trying to paint Democrats as racists because of how the party voted back when they were essentially who the Republicans are now is blatant misinformation being used simply because it is another talking point.

It's not a policy, its not a stance, its not a platform. It's a charade, it's smoke and mirrors, and it's bullshit. Republican voters who claim to be responsible and sensible should not be standing for the bullshit they're being fed by their own politicians. They should be forcing their representatives to stand for something and show proof of it.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

What I am saying is simply that we need reform and change and open civil dialogue not name calling and blame sharing.

The problem is that sometimes one cannot say "both sides". I'm not circlejerking on this individual. You can read my post history, I'm hurting and in a rage constantly over the state of our nation. Only one side is actively attempting to instill fear to get the vote out, by any means necessary. Many segments on Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, these guys are just blatantly running active scare campaigns 24/7 and have been for almost 20 years. Its Jon's favorite talking point: "Liberals are a bigger threat to the United States than ISIS" and making casual comments advocating for the death of liberal politicians and sometimes liberal voters.

Both sides have nutjobs. Only one side is actively attempting to weaponize their nutjobs and actively trying to instill fear in them for views and votes.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Do you seriously think he would have chosen those particular targets absent of Trumps rhetoric?

Just like with all the school shootings, I think there is a lot of danger in spending too much time worrying about one specific incident. This one individual may or may not have gone off the deep end without the rhetoric. Arguing as though its a certainty feels hollow to me. Instead, much like with school shootings, this could be used to instead bring the focus to a much larger and more pervasive problem than anything surrounding one individual to try to effect large scale and significant change.

Of course that wont happen. But its a nice thought in my head.

[RainMaker]

Reminder that the law and order President cut funding to fighting right wing extremists when he took office despite it being the most prevalent form of terrorism in this country.

Trump cuts funds to fight anti-right wing violence | TheHill

So this guy, like many of the others, had posted violent rhetoric, threats, and showed off his weaponry online. Can't fathom that if you were a Muslim doing the same thing, you wouldn't be shipped off to some undisclosed location in the middle of the night. But a certain segment of the population seems to play by different rules.

[JPhillips]

Let's not forget a few years ago when DHS put out a report on the growing threat of right-wing extremism and the GOP threw such a fit that the report was withdrawn.

[Edward64]

And now for some food for thought ...

Republicans and Democrats Don’t Just Disagree About Politics. They Have Different Sexual Fantasies. - POLITICO Magazine

According to the largest and most comprehensive survey of sexual fantasies ever conducted in the United States, it would appear that there are also political differences in our private sexual fantasies.

I surveyed 4,175 adult Americans from all 50 states about what turns them on and published the findings in a book entitled Tell Me What You Want. As part of this survey, participants were given a list of hundreds of different people, places and things that might be a turn-on. For each one, they reported on how frequently they fantasized about it.
:
While self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats reported fantasizing with the same average frequency—several times per week—I found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to fantasize about a range of activities that involve sex outside of marriage. Think things like infidelity, orgies and partner swapping, from 70s-style “key parties” to modern-day forms of swinging. Republicans also reported more fantasies with voyeuristic themes, including visiting strip clubs and practicing something known as “cuckolding,” which involves watching one’s partner have sex with someone else.

By contrast, self-identified Democrats were more likely than Republicans to fantasize about almost the entire spectrum of BDSM activities, from bondage to spanking to dominance-submission play. The largest Democrat-Republican divide on the BDSM spectrum was in masochism, which involves deriving pleasure from the experience of pain.

Why is that? Why do Republicans seem to be drawn to non-monogamy and Democrats to power play in their sexual fantasies?

[JPhillips]

More than 20 Brazilian universities were invaded by the military police in the past 2 days. They confiscated material on the history of fascism, interrupted classes due to 'ideological content', removed anti-fascist banners and posters claiming that it was electoral propaganda.

And this was before the fascist won the election today. Things are about to get very bad in Brazil.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And this was before the fascist won the election today. Things are about to get very bad in Brazil.

Hey when the opposition is garbage, you're allowed to treat them like that, right? Isn't that the entire lesson fascism?

[bbgunn]

Brazil's about to become Trump 2.0 but on a different, 4D level. Bolsonaro has actively called for the return of the military dictatorship that ruled from 1964-1985. He said that black people shouldn't even procreate.

[Ksyrup]

I guess I'm in the minority of conservatives who has had the opposite reaction to the way Fox News shamelessly covers the news, publicizing any angle they can to fit the President/Republican agenda. You certainly see left-leaning articles/headlines elsewhere - I usually keep open browser tabs to CNN/Fox/NBC just to take it all in for context - but Fox lacks any attempt at subtlety. It amazes me that people don't see it - even ones who agree. It just feels so transparent, like people should know they are being purposely led down a path.

Take the current headline on Fox News. "Prosecutor's take Trump's cue, move to have alleged synagogue gunman executed." Yes, I'm sure if it wasn't for Trump deflecting discussion of the real issues by suggesting the gunman should be executed, the prosecutor would never have thought to consider charging someone who murdered 11 people just because they were Jewish with the death penalty. Thank God Trump brought it up. I'm sure he did that to show leadership, not to score cheap political points by making an obvious statement that most people would agree with and to fill the empty air of what otherwise would have been his statement. That type of headline/coverage is just so flipping unnecessary!

[miami_fan]

I have not read something that left me with the feeling of "I don't really understand what I just read, but I understand" like this article did. I did learn a lot though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7dfea99253e2

[JPhillips]

What horseshit.

The military is expected to deploy 5,000 troops to the southern border, up from initial estimates of 800 troops, U.S. officials say.

5000 troops to stop a small number of people a thousand miles from the border.

[PilotMan]

I think it would be funny if Mexico sent troops to the border in response to trump's "totally going to invade Mexico" military build up.

[JPhillips]

BREAKING Pentagon will send 5200 troops to border, has 150 miles of concertina wire ready to use, Northcom says

That should be really helpful on an almost two thousand mile border.

And Sanders refused to rule out suspending habeus corpus or posse comitatus at the border.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That should be really helpful on an almost two thousand mile border.

Oh, it can be done! Here’s an instructional video on how to do it:


https://youtu.be/WZorfXa5pBc

[cartman]

I wonder if we will hear from any of those Jade Helm people who were protesting the possibility of posse comitatus being suspended.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What horseshit.



5000 troops to stop a small number of people a thousand miles from the border.

Well if they would tell us exactly how many of them there are and exactly where they plan to cross a more reasonable number could be sent.


Besides the Charlotte Observer says the caravan numbers in the thousands:
In migrant caravan, safety in numbers and no smuggling fees | Charlotte Observer


According to the NY Times there are between 7,000 according to the Un and 3,200 according to the Mexican government:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/w...s-history.html


The Washington Post says there are 4,000:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.5fd6564d99d4


So...if there are 2,000 people on the low side. You need quite a group to detain that many, otherwise they just take off running in all directions.


Really of all the things to complain about, the size of the force sent to stop and oppose them seems an odd one. The alternate is have too few and have them resort to less than desirable (to all but JiMGA) detainment methods.

[cartman]

But, unless they do something extreme like suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, there is fuck all troops can do. They cannot undertake any direct action themselves. All they can do is provide logistical assistance to law enforcement, they can't directly detain anyone.

[CU Tiger]

Im not a lawyer or legal expert. Candidly I just read about Posse Comitatus for 15 seconds Im not qualified to comment.


But the National guard has been used many times to help restore order...and even if they dont detain anyone, a show of force can still be effective.


Even if they use HMMWV or similar to form a barricade and funnel?


I dont know. But what is the alternative? Just allow thousands of non citizens to over run a border checkpoint? I mean there is precedence for their intent given how they entered Mexico, right?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Oh, it can be done! Here’s an instructional video on how to do it:


https://youtu.be/WZorfXa5pBc

I encourage people to check out this video. It is highly instructional.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Well if they would tell us exactly how many of them there are and exactly where they plan to cross a more reasonable number could be sent.

Well, according to Shep Smith on Fox they are two months away. However, the election is next week, so the need to show overwhelming strength is now.

“There is no invasion. No one is coming to get you. There is nothing at all to worry about."
Fox's Shep Smith rips Trump rhetoric on caravan: 'There is no invasion' | TheHill

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Im not a lawyer or legal expert. Candidly I just read about Posse Comitatus for 15 seconds Im not qualified to comment.


But the National guard has been used many times to help restore order...and even if they dont detain anyone, a show of force can still be effective.


Even if they use HMMWV or similar to form a barricade and funnel?


I dont know. But what is the alternative? Just allow thousands of non citizens to over run a border checkpoint? I mean there is precedence for their intent given how they entered Mexico, right?

They're hundreds of miles away. By the time they get here few of them will be left, and those that show up can be processed like others seeking asylum. A Civil War army could march @15 miles per day. Considering the distance and the composition of the caravan, putting the military on the border now is clearly an election stunt.

Keep in mind a few days ago a WH official was quoted as saying Trump was not being truthful regarding the caravan, but, "that's the play." It's all a con.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well, according to Shep Smith on Fox they are two months away. However, the election is next week, so the need to show overwhelming strength is now.

“There is no invasion. No one is coming to get you. There is nothing at all to worry about."
Fox's Shep Smith rips Trump rhetoric on caravan: 'There is no invasion' | TheHill

"When they did this to us, got us all riled up in April, remember?" Smith said. "The result was 14 arrests. We’re America, we can handle it.

I think only a couple hundred made it to the border from that caravan. However many thousands there are now, most of them won't make it through a thousand mile plus march.

[RainMaker]

It's just an expensive show to placate the base. They aren't doing anything down there but costing us money. The caravan will be pretty small by the time it reaches the border.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I have not read something that left me with the feeling of "I don't really understand what I just read, but I understand" like this article did. I did learn a lot though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.7dfea99253e2

Reading that gave me a half-dozen headaches.

[cartman]

Plus, even if there are a couple of thousand that make it, the border crossings handle tens of thousands of crossings each day, with some of the larger ones handling over 100,000 per day. It would take an enormously larger number of people than the composition of the current caravan to completely overrun a border checkpoint.

[RainMaker]

They aren't concerned with the caravan. It's just to push the "Jews are sending immigrants to kill us all" narrative that their base eats up.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think only a couple hundred made it to the border from that caravan. However many thousands there are now, most of them won't make it through a thousand mile plus march.

Such a bummer, for me. My favorite sandwich place is now closed 3 days a week because they can’t find any workers.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And this was before the fascist won the election today. Things are about to get very bad in Brazil.

I was listening to NPR today. They had a guest from Brazil (talking about something else but it got to the elections).

Two things I remember

1) This guy is worse than Trump in terms of rhetoric (more like Duterte)
2) This guy had wide support because apparently people think he is the best chance to curb crime & violence

Apparently crime is really bad.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

I wonder if we will hear from any of those Jade Helm people who were protesting the possibility of posse comitatus being suspended.

I read some militia folks are going down to the border. So they are obviously worried.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was listening to NPR today. They had a guest from Brazil (talking about something else but it got to the elections).

Two things I remember

1) This guy is worse than Trump in terms of rhetoric (more like Duterte)
2) This guy had wide support because apparently people think he is the best chance to curb crime & violence

Apparently crime is really bad.

Just glancing at Wikipedia, Brazil's homicide rate is about six times higher than the US. So with hardly knowing anything else about Brazil politics I can see why they might want a law and order guy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I dont know. But what is the alternative? Just allow thousands of non citizens to over run a border checkpoint? I mean there is precedence for their intent given how they entered Mexico, right?

The long term alternative is to hurry and build the darn wall already!

Trump should just concede that Mexico won't "directly" pay for the wall (although he can probably say/lie that renegotiated NAFTA essentially means Mexico is paying for it) and scrap a budgeted $13B aircraft carrier to get started.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Just glancing at Wikipedia, Brazil's homicide rate is about six times higher than the US. So with hardly knowing anything else about Brazil politics I can see why they might want a law and order guy.

It would be an interesting social experiment to put guns in the hands of the "good guys" and see how it plays out.

This list is by cities.

List of cities by murder rate - Wikipedia

Mexico has 5 in top 10
Brazil has 3 in top 10
Venezuela has 2 in the top 10

[PilotMan]

Good guys are in the eye of the beholder, or should I say the eye of the person who writes the history texts. You could look at the Philippines as an example I suppose, and you'd also have to ask if it's worth killing a handful of innocents to get the bad guys, and if you're willing to hand the power over to someone who might just keep the guns trained on the 'bad guys' longer than he needs to, all in the name of public order, of course.