Bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 90 of 573 < 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 >

legaleagle 05 Jan 18 2.23pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays And as we know....truth to an activist is just additionally nice rather than central. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2018 12.59pm) Would you say that applies to activists generally on all sides of the spectrum?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

05 Jan 18 2.23pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

And as we know....truth to an activist is just additionally nice rather than central.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2018 12.59pm)

Would you say that applies to activists generally on all sides of the spectrum?

Alert a moderator to this post

wordup 05 Jan 18 2.29pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 You could if all under 12's were brought up via school education with the attitude that guns are only for cops and farmers and sports and illegal otherwise and when they grow up they brought up their children to believe the same and all the while reinforced with new strict gun laws. It could all be very different in 30-40 years or less and with each passing generation. It's a commendable aim, but they would be going home to parents telling them the exact opposite on account that they are very likely gun owners themselves.
Alert a moderator to this post

wordup

05 Jan 18 2.29pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

You could if all under 12's were brought up via school education with the attitude that guns are only for cops and farmers and sports and illegal otherwise and when they grow up they brought up their children to believe the same and all the while reinforced with new strict gun laws.

It could all be very different in 30-40 years or less and with each passing generation.

It's a commendable aim, but they would be going home to parents telling them the exact opposite on account that they are very likely gun owners themselves.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 05 Jan 18 2.39pm
Originally posted by legaleagle Would you say that applies to activists generally on all sides of the spectrum? In general I would. Most activists are a pain in the arse......I say that whilst recognising that without them nothing moves forward or changes. However.....while my and pretty much everyone's view of an activist is dependent upon what they are pushing ....I think many people can say that a good many of them lose sight of the woods from the trees. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

05 Jan 18 2.39pm

Originally posted by legaleagle

Would you say that applies to activists generally on all sides of the spectrum?

In general I would.

Most activists are a pain in the arse......I say that whilst recognising that without them nothing moves forward or changes.

However.....while my and pretty much everyone's view of an activist is dependent upon what they are pushing ....I think many people can say that a good many of them lose sight of the woods from the trees.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Penge Eagle Beckenham 05 Jan 18 2.47pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Amnesties, law changes, severe punishments for transgressors, and ban the sale of bullets to everyone who doesn't actually need a gun for work nor for allowed, legal recreation. For any other sane country in The West it would be/is doable but as it's the U.S...yep, you are right. Impossible. I admire your positivism, but I can't see The Second Amendment being ripped up, ever. At least not in our lifetimes.
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 05 Jan 18 2.47pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Amnesties, law changes, severe punishments for transgressors, and ban the sale of bullets to everyone who doesn't actually need a gun for work nor for allowed, legal recreation.

For any other sane country in The West it would be/is doable but as it's the U.S...yep, you are right. Impossible.

I admire your positivism, but I can't see The Second Amendment being ripped up, ever. At least not in our lifetimes.

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Jan 18 2.50pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Well, from what I've read so far the book is by an obvious hack looking to sell sweets to children....in other words giving people like you what you want. And as we know....truth to an activist is just additionally nice rather than central. What I would say though is that I don't agree that Trump is right to look to ban this book.....also he also displays his hypocrisy by calling the author a liar as he has no issues with lies that suit him. So in essence he's getting what he gives out back. But the tone of all this isn't serious and shouldn't be taken seriously......maybe there is some truth in it...we will see I guess. I would certainly be interested in reading more serious books on the whole Trump pre and presidential experience once it's all done.....but not a tabloid hack style book. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2018 12.59pm) I dunno, it ties up with what I see when the man in question is almost incapable of a coherent sentence in press briefings / interviews, and from the absurdity of his constant tweeting. The man doesn't seem to have a coherent memory at all, constantly claiming things now about events and people, that contradict what he was saying about them a year ago; and appears to completely believe it. Its not just that he's dumb, he doesn't realise maybe just how dumb he is. Seriously, how many presidents would persist with twitter if it was just constantly being used to undermine their credibility. The bloke is a fking mental midget. He might not be as fked as people think, and it might be that he's just an average man well out of his depth. No credibility, no real authority and seemingly, according to numerous different sources, regarded as incompetent not only by the opposition, but his own party and staff. Even Bannon, seems to have deserted him. He's not even got the sense to resign himself to the fact that he's in the s**t and withdraw from making stupid statements. At least G W Bush knew his limitations and employed people to assist with them. Trump seems to spend half his statements praising himself. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Jan 18 2.50pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Well, from what I've read so far the book is by an obvious hack looking to sell sweets to children....in other words giving people like you what you want.

And as we know....truth to an activist is just additionally nice rather than central.

What I would say though is that I don't agree that Trump is right to look to ban this book.....also he also displays his hypocrisy by calling the author a liar as he has no issues with lies that suit him.

So in essence he's getting what he gives out back.

But the tone of all this isn't serious and shouldn't be taken seriously......maybe there is some truth in it...we will see I guess.

I would certainly be interested in reading more serious books on the whole Trump pre and presidential experience once it's all done.....but not a tabloid hack style book.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2018 12.59pm)

I dunno, it ties up with what I see when the man in question is almost incapable of a coherent sentence in press briefings / interviews, and from the absurdity of his constant tweeting. The man doesn't seem to have a coherent memory at all, constantly claiming things now about events and people, that contradict what he was saying about them a year ago; and appears to completely believe it. Its not just that he's dumb, he doesn't realise maybe just how dumb he is. Seriously, how many presidents would persist with twitter if it was just constantly being used to undermine their credibility.

The bloke is a f**king mental midget. He might not be as f**ked as people think, and it might be that he's just an average man well out of his depth.

No credibility, no real authority and seemingly, according to numerous different sources, regarded as incompetent not only by the opposition, but his own party and staff.

Even Bannon, seems to have deserted him. He's not even got the sense to resign himself to the fact that he's in the s**t and withdraw from making stupid statements.

At least G W Bush knew his limitations and employed people to assist with them. Trump seems to spend half his statements praising himself.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 05 Jan 18 2.50pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 You could if all under 12's were brought up via school education with the attitude that guns are only for cops and farmers and sports and illegal otherwise and when they grow up they brought up their children to believe the same and all the while reinforced with new strict gun laws. It could all be very different in 30-40 years or less and with each passing generation. It's a nice idea but it wouldn't work....these are people's children....I think that would be an example of the state being too political. If the majority of Americans want guns then guns is what they get. They certainly aren't the only country.....It's for the politicians to win the arguments....maybe an elected president can do something on restricting advertising...but coercion isn't a good idea. Every gun massacre is a tragedy.....It's one of those horrible fault lines where there is no answer.....It's a s*** sandwich. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

05 Jan 18 2.50pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

You could if all under 12's were brought up via school education with the attitude that guns are only for cops and farmers and sports and illegal otherwise and when they grow up they brought up their children to believe the same and all the while reinforced with new strict gun laws.

It could all be very different in 30-40 years or less and with each passing generation.

It's a nice idea but it wouldn't work....these are people's children....I think that would be an example of the state being too political.

If the majority of Americans want guns then guns is what they get. They certainly aren't the only country.....It's for the politicians to win the arguments....maybe an elected president can do something on restricting advertising...but coercion isn't a good idea.

Every gun massacre is a tragedy.....It's one of those horrible fault lines where there is no answer.....It's a s*** sandwich.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Jan 18 2.57pm
Originally posted by Penge Eagle I admire your positivism, but I can't see The Second Amendment being ripped up, ever. At least not in our lifetimes. Here in lies the problem. Gun control laws aren't about ripping up the second amendment - its about sensible legislation about the ownership of lethal weapons. The lobby seems to be absurdly point at any reasonable legislation as being anti-gun. The US could reduce its problem with a massive overhaul of mental health care and costs in the US. But then, that means spending money - Arguably a lot of these people committing these acts are people who have mental health problems that cannot be addressed or intervention is unaffordable. The NRA and lobby even break down laws regarding the production of firearms databases - which the Police and Federal authorities really want (so they can verify whether someone at a call their going to has access to firearms). As for the 'then only bad guys will have guns' there is an inherent problem here. Half of the gun deaths are suicides, and almost all of the spree shootings in the US are committed with legally owned firearms. Also the primary source for firearms for criminals, is from the legal market. It seems absurd that the question is how many massacres a year is acceptable. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Jan 18 2.57pm

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

I admire your positivism, but I can't see The Second Amendment being ripped up, ever. At least not in our lifetimes.

Here in lies the problem. Gun control laws aren't about ripping up the second amendment - its about sensible legislation about the ownership of lethal weapons.

The lobby seems to be absurdly point at any reasonable legislation as being anti-gun.

The US could reduce its problem with a massive overhaul of mental health care and costs in the US. But then, that means spending money - Arguably a lot of these people committing these acts are people who have mental health problems that cannot be addressed or intervention is unaffordable.

The NRA and lobby even break down laws regarding the production of firearms databases - which the Police and Federal authorities really want (so they can verify whether someone at a call their going to has access to firearms).

As for the 'then only bad guys will have guns' there is an inherent problem here. Half of the gun deaths are suicides, and almost all of the spree shootings in the US are committed with legally owned firearms. Also the primary source for firearms for criminals, is from the legal market.

It seems absurd that the question is how many massacres a year is acceptable.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Jan 18 3.03pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays It's a nice idea but it wouldn't work....these are people's children....I think that would be an example of the state being too political. If the majority of Americans want guns then guns is what they get. They certainly aren't the only country.....It's for the politicians to win the arguments....maybe an elected president can do something on restricting advertising...but coercion isn't a good idea. Every gun massacre is a tragedy.....It's one of those horrible fault lines where there is no answer.....It's a s*** sandwich. The reality isn't what people want - Its about how much money there is in the Gun Business in the US. We're talking about a country that banned automatic weapons, and then allowed people to obtain 'loop holes' in terms of hardware around that. In what other country would that be considered even remotely reasonable. The UK in response to Hungerford outlawed the sale of rifles going forwards, but allowed for those who had them, in circulation, to keep them, provided they converted the magazine to a restricted number of rounds - so they could still be used for hunting. Similarly with shotguns, at the time, pump actions shotguns for sale were restricted to 3 rounds maximum and that those owning larger capacity shotguns would have a period of time in which to have them converted down to three rounds. I get that people might need a handgun for home defence - that seems reasonable - what they don't need is a stack of them, a few Assault rifles, a couple of hunting rifles and a range of shotguns plus a few thousand rounds of ammo in the house. But that would then cut into the Gun Lobby's profits. The US would see this as anti-gun, not sensible legislation. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Jan 18 3.03pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

It's a nice idea but it wouldn't work....these are people's children....I think that would be an example of the state being too political.

Every gun massacre is a tragedy.....It's one of those horrible fault lines where there is no answer.....It's a s*** sandwich.

The reality isn't what people want - Its about how much money there is in the Gun Business in the US. We're talking about a country that banned automatic weapons, and then allowed people to obtain 'loop holes' in terms of hardware around that.

In what other country would that be considered even remotely reasonable. The UK in response to Hungerford outlawed the sale of rifles going forwards, but allowed for those who had them, in circulation, to keep them, provided they converted the magazine to a restricted number of rounds - so they could still be used for hunting.

Similarly with shotguns, at the time, pump actions shotguns for sale were restricted to 3 rounds maximum and that those owning larger capacity shotguns would have a period of time in which to have them converted down to three rounds.

I get that people might need a handgun for home defence - that seems reasonable - what they don't need is a stack of them, a few Assault rifles, a couple of hunting rifles and a range of shotguns plus a few thousand rounds of ammo in the house.

But that would then cut into the Gun Lobby's profits.

The US would see this as anti-gun, not sensible legislation.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 05 Jan 18 3.08pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I dunno, it ties up with what I see when the man in question is almost incapable of a coherent sentence in press briefings / interviews, and from the absurdity of his constant tweeting. The man doesn't seem to have a coherent memory at all, constantly claiming things now about events and people, that contradict what he was saying about them a year ago; and appears to completely believe it. Its not just that he's dumb, he doesn't realise maybe just how dumb he is. Seriously, how many presidents would persist with twitter if it was just constantly being used to undermine their credibility. The bloke is a fking mental midget. He might not be as fked as people think, and it might be that he's just an average man well out of his depth. No credibility, no real authority and seemingly, according to numerous different sources, regarded as incompetent not only by the opposition, but his own party and staff. Even Bannon, seems to have deserted him. He's not even got the sense to resign himself to the fact that he's in the s**t and withdraw from making stupid statements. At least G W Bush knew his limitations and employed people to assist with them. Trump seems to spend half his statements praising himself. Bannon called him 'a great man' the other night on his radio show.....so, lets not get too carried away with one narrative that just fits our take. I'm sure than Bannon says a lot of things and talks out of both sides of his mouth so to speak. While you have quite a lot of invective I wouldn't disagree with some of your characterisations. However, Trump is president and he won fairly using their system....with no doubt the usual unethical behaviours that most campaign teams are guilty of. I think I hear a lot of intellectual snobbery over Trump. Sure, there are far more intelligent politicians and he wouldn't have risen this high in a better meritocracy....sure. Personally I view Trump as intelligent enough....intelligent enough to limit his role in certain ways. He obviously does take advice and eventually he has actually appointed quite competent people....certainly no less competent than his predecessors. Besides what did being considerably smarter get Obama? He was an embarrassment on foreign affairs and ended his presidency with the world less safe....provided the space for IS extremists to expand in Iraq..... Trump has already had a better affect in foreign affairs for America than Obama managed his entire tenure....Nobel peace prize....it's a parody.....The North Korea problem was an issue left to him by Obama....and to be fair all the presidents since the fifties....but the nuclear reality only matured under Obama.....Trump's actually pushed China over NK and they take him seriously....while they treated Obama with contempt. It appears that Trump runs very little domestic policy other than a concern on Islamic immigration and leaves it to the party.....his interest is mainly on trade and foreign affairs and twitter. He's improved relations with Russia, deescalated the difference over Syria (and I was with Clinton on that) His affects on trade and taxes will be seen....and I'm open minded on it.....Of course he's embarrassing on Twitter.....but Trump is Trump. There are plenty of Trump policies I don't agree with but that's no different than what I saw with Obama....and I like the nationalism of Trump and he's pro British.....plus he's certainly far more amusing than Clinton. So for me at least...it is what it is. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2018 3.17pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

05 Jan 18 3.08pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The bloke is a f**king mental midget. He might not be as f**ked as people think, and it might be that he's just an average man well out of his depth.

No credibility, no real authority and seemingly, according to numerous different sources, regarded as incompetent not only by the opposition, but his own party and staff.

Even Bannon, seems to have deserted him. He's not even got the sense to resign himself to the fact that he's in the s**t and withdraw from making stupid statements.

At least G W Bush knew his limitations and employed people to assist with them. Trump seems to spend half his statements praising himself.

Bannon called him 'a great man' the other night on his radio show.....so, lets not get too carried away with one narrative that just fits our take. I'm sure than Bannon says a lot of things and talks out of both sides of his mouth so to speak.

While you have quite a lot of invective I wouldn't disagree with some of your characterisations.

However, Trump is president and he won fairly using their system....with no doubt the usual unethical behaviours that most campaign teams are guilty of.

I think I hear a lot of intellectual snobbery over Trump. Sure, there are far more intelligent politicians and he wouldn't have risen this high in a better meritocracy....sure.

Personally I view Trump as intelligent enough....intelligent enough to limit his role in certain ways. He obviously does take advice and eventually he has actually appointed quite competent people....certainly no less competent than his predecessors. Besides what did being considerably smarter get Obama? He was an embarrassment on foreign affairs and ended his presidency with the world less safe....provided the space for IS extremists to expand in Iraq..... Trump has already had a better affect in foreign affairs for America than Obama managed his entire tenure....Nobel peace prize....it's a parody.....The North Korea problem was an issue left to him by Obama....and to be fair all the presidents since the fifties....but the nuclear reality only matured under Obama.....Trump's actually pushed China over NK and they take him seriously....while they treated Obama with contempt.

It appears that Trump runs very little domestic policy other than a concern on Islamic immigration and leaves it to the party.....his interest is mainly on trade and foreign affairs and twitter. He's improved relations with Russia, deescalated the difference over Syria (and I was with Clinton on that)

His affects on trade and taxes will be seen....and I'm open minded on it.....Of course he's embarrassing on Twitter.....but Trump is Trump.

There are plenty of Trump policies I don't agree with but that's no different than what I saw with Obama....and I like the nationalism of Trump and he's pro British.....plus he's certainly far more amusing than Clinton.

So for me at least...it is what it is.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2018 3.17pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham Eton Mess 05 Jan 18 3.13pm
Originally posted by Penge Eagle I admire your positivism, but I can't see The Second Amendment being ripped up, ever. At least not in our lifetimes. My ex wife is an American. I always felt uneasy about visiting her relatives and seeing the massive amounts of weaponry they possessed. It wasn't a single gun but usually cabinets full of the darn things. I can't recount number of offers I turned down to go out and shoot things. It's a way of life out there and I can't see them giving it up easily either. Denial is not just a river in Egypt
Alert a moderator to this post

Henry of Peckham

Eton Mess 05 Jan 18 3.13pm

Send a Private Message to Henry of Peckham

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

I admire your positivism, but I can't see The Second Amendment being ripped up, ever. At least not in our lifetimes.

My ex wife is an American. I always felt uneasy about visiting her relatives and seeing the massive amounts of weaponry they possessed. It wasn't a single gun but usually cabinets full of the darn things. I can't recount number of offers I turned down to go out and shoot things. It's a way of life out there and I can't see them giving it up easily either.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Jan 18 4.04pm
[Tweet Link] Sounds pretty nailed on.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 05 Jan 18 4.04pm

[Tweet Link]

Sounds pretty nailed on.

Alert a moderator to this post

chelys London 05 Jan 18 4.36pm
Trump's tweet on having a bigger nuclear arsenal than communist Korea is used to as yet another example of his idiocy and childishness. Yet the main strategy of America for many years has been to have more military muscle than any adversaries. Trump's communications are brash to say the least, but they deliver simple messages that are in tune with his supporters. His opponents basically condemn whatever he says and generally agree with Hilary that his supporters are a 'basket of deplorables'. This simply plays into his hands, he thrives on such contempt, he won the election due to it.
Alert a moderator to this post

chelys

London 05 Jan 18 4.36pm

Trump's tweet on having a bigger nuclear arsenal than communist Korea is used to as yet another example of his idiocy and childishness. Yet the main strategy of America for many years has been to have more military muscle than any adversaries. Trump's communications are brash to say the least, but they deliver simple messages that are in tune with his supporters. His opponents basically condemn whatever he says and generally agree with Hilary that his supporters are a 'basket of deplorables'. This simply plays into his hands, he thrives on such contempt, he won the election due to it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 90 of 573 < 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Bias against Trump

Site Map

Sponsors