Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The "I'm Smarter than the President" Topic

- - - - - politics president trump dumbass

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

I remember that the one silver lining I found when George W. Bush took office in January 2001 was that I can comfortably say, "I'm smarter than the president."  For the most part, it was easy to identify the flaws in his policies and thinking, and come up with better ideas.

 

This is the same consolation I've taken this time around, now that America has elected a sleazy, incompetent, fascistic, man-baby to the same office.  The differences now are that I have 16 more years of education and life experience under my belt, and the ability to fight back on a policy front is more important than ever.  It's on policy issues that the Deplorable Jackass Tyrant is most vulnerable, and how he can be defeated, provided enough smart people rise up to resist him.  The next generation of leaders will have to harness the rising tide of resistance, the massive energy that's been generated in opposition to his policies, and develop the new ideas with which they are going to clean up the mess and rebuild America's future.

 

Therefore, I wanted to do an activity, an experiment of sorts.  I said it would be ridiculously easy to defeat him in the arena of ideas, and I intend to prove it.  I want to demonstrate that anyone can come up with better ideas than the bullshit he's proposed and so far tried to enact.  And this can be done on an issue by issue basis, or in general.

 

So, the issue of healthcare has been in the news over the past week.  It's easy to point out where he went wrong, but had it been up to you, what would you have done?


After people protested, Trump made some changes to his Stop and Frisk policy. Unfortunately it now involves being stabbed to death by a child with a plastic knife.


#2
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,319 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

So, the issue of healthcare has been in the news over the past week.  It's easy to point out where he went wrong, but had it been up to you, what would you have done?

 

Here it is necessary to do battle with propaganda that has a malicious intent, stealing healthcare from the poor to benefit the super-rich.  Since the enemy (Republican party) is trying to be deceitful, and success for them requires ignorance on the part of the public, I'd do as so many citizens already did.  The way to combat sneaky deceit like this is to shine a very bright light on it. 

 

I'd create website(s) to expose the evil intentions of the Republicans and their owner/operator billionaire bastards, just as I did.   I'd post messages exposing the flaws in what they consider logic.  I'd demonstrate by documenting their actions that they intend to harm the peoples instead of helping us.

 

I'd malign viciously and sarcastically the major players like billionaire butt licker Paul Ryan and his fellow congressional villains.  I'd ridicule them mercilessly.  I don't like guns, I'd attack using facts.

 

And finally I'd celebrate when the forces of neurotic and malicious greed are beaten back into their corner, temporarily.


"Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them."

--Lao Tzu

 


#3
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Here it is necessary to do battle with propaganda that has a malicious intent, stealing healthcare from the poor to benefit the super-rich.  Since the enemy (Republican party) is trying to be deceitful, and success for them requires ignorance on the part of the public, I'd do as so many citizens already did.  The way to combat sneaky deceit like this is to shine a very bright light on it. 

 

I'd create website(s) to expose the evil intentions of the Republicans and their owner/operator billionaire bastards, just as I did.   I'd post messages exposing the flaws in what they consider logic.  I'd demonstrate by documenting their actions that they intend to harm the peoples instead of helping us.

 

I'd malign viciously and sarcastically the major players like billionaire butt licker Paul Ryan and his fellow congressional villains.  I'd ridicule them mercilessly.  I don't like guns, I'd attack using facts.

 

And finally I'd celebrate when the forces of neurotic and malicious greed are beaten back into their corner, temporarily.

I meant more along the lines of, what alternative policies would you propose if it were up to you?  If you were running for, or held an elected office, what kind of legislation would you draft?  The reason I started with healthcare is that the answer is so easy, it's already being proposed right now.

 

 

As a citizen, you can get on the phone and flood your representative's line with calls, and flood their email with messages.


  • Ungodly likes this

After people protested, Trump made some changes to his Stop and Frisk policy. Unfortunately it now involves being stabbed to death by a child with a plastic knife.


#4
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,319 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

I meant more along the lines of, what alternative policies would you propose if it were up to you? 

 

My number one priority would be universal health care to move the United States into the modern world.  Next would be turning swords into plowshares.  Instead of the gummint spending money to buy tanks they could use that money to give farmers 0% loans for farm equipment.  I'd also like to see farmers raised to a position of greater respect and higher compensation because they are so critical to human existence and they work long, hard hours.  Perhaps they could get some tax credit based on how much food they produce?  I'd focus foreign aid on building agricultural and educational infrastructures in poor countries.

 

I'd insist that women get the same pay as men for the same jobs.  I'd create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  I'd confront malicious religionists with facts.  I'd insist on equal rights across the board for every human being.  I'd increase funding for scientific research and education.   I'd promote the practice of critical thinking.   I'd flaunt my vegan lifestyle choice.  I'd be assassinated fairly quickly :)


  • Aging Disgracefully and Zeff like this

"Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them."

--Lao Tzu

 


#5
Zeff

Zeff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • LocationUK

I agree with all of Ungodly's policies and suggest ending the gun-culture too. It isn't just a matter of policies though. Like many Brits, many USAmericans seem driven by what they wish to believe and by emotions rather than objectivity, truth and the needs of the economy. We need a change in the culture of English speaking peoples whereby we care more about the truth, quality debate and about the language we use. If Brits have one advantage it is that we are generally less polarized and less demonstrative, but the North Americans have many other advantages over the European mess. The two key advantages they have is a common language and fewer barriers to what Eu-philes call the 'four freedoms': goods, people, services and capital.
http://www.europeanp...gle-market.html
Europe needs to move closer to the North American model but USAmericans need to care more about truth...
https://www.youtube....h?v=xnhJWusyj4I
Laughter was one response to Newt Gingrich but some of what he says is both true and important. Many USAmericans are not safer and crime is only down statistically relative to, say, the 1970s or 1980s. People aren't necessarily safer than in the 1950s nor are they safer in every part of the USA. To change the minds of Mr Gingrich's fans one needs to acknowledge the truth in what he says, however poorly he expressed it. Mockery, dismissal, name-calling, ridicule and sarcasm may make the task even more difficult.


Edited by Zeff, 28 March 2017 - 04:31 AM.


#6
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,319 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

"theoretically may be right, but {bullshit detected}"

 

No worries if the side he argues against is correct, that won't stop Newt "Marital Fidelity" Gingrich.

 

 

Mockery, dismissal, name-calling, ridicule and sarcasm may make the task even more difficult.

 

These responses are indeed less productive when directed at the source of BS, but ridiculing bullshitters has a time and place too.  Among a group of like-thinking folks such as we are the use of sarcasm and ridicule can be a pressure relief valve, at least I see it that way.

 

Where it is least useful is being troll-like and expressing such views to folks who strongly hold opposing views.

 

Then there are the folks in neither group I've described, let's call them fence sitters.  This is where ridicule and sarcasm can convey a point that would be difficult to communicate otherwise.  It can help people break free of mental ruts, and stimulate a new way of examining an issue.

 

In the case of Newt himself, he deserves any ridicule he gets because he is consciously and deliberately deceitful.  Case in point, his persecution of Bill Clinton over marital fidelity while Newt himself was busy banging his mistress on the side while his wife died of cancer.  He is a horrible example of a human being.


"Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them."

--Lao Tzu

 


#7
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

I agree with all of Ungodly's policies and suggest ending the gun-culture too.

I was going to bring up the gun control debate eventually, because it's one issue I think both political sides in the US are going about the wrong way.  Liberals want to ban all guns, as if that will somehow address the underlying socio-economic, cultural, and psychological reasons for violence among human beings.  Conservatives want unrestricted and unregulated access to all guns, as if implementing an overly simplistic interpretation of the Second Amendment and looking the other way will let the problem of violence magically sort itself out.

 

This might be a good time to look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

There are a couple of details that pundits tend to ignore.  The first is the term "militia" which is defined as either part of an organized armed services in a country, or as a body of citizens organized for military service.  The second is that it says, right there, that the militia must be well-regulated.  This means that the government is allowed to regulate, organize, and direct groups of citizens who keep and bear weapons.  In other words, it's referring more precisely to groups like the police or military.  Nowhere in there does it imply a bunch of idiots running around with guns and doing whatever the hell they want.

 

There are reasons why neither approach from the far left or far right will work.  For liberals, I would point out that laws restricting gun ownership do nothing to keep guns away from criminals, who by definition are people who will break the law to get what they want in the first place.  Guns are also not the only weapon in existence, as humans have always found plenty of other ways to kill each other.  Explosives, vehicles, and knives work just as well, and most households have plenty of the latter two.  You don't even need a weapon to kill someone, as there are many ways to do it with your bare hands.  Restrictions on guns are not going to somehow wipe away the reasons people have for committing acts of violence.

 

It is true that guns make killing easier, are the most likely weapon to be used in homicide, and most US citizens support measures like background checks and closing gun show loopholes.  It's also true that the majority of gun owners have no intent to ever use them to commit violent acts against others.  Despite the stereotype perpetuated by those open-carry lunatics, most gun owners are simply hobbyists who go to the range or collect different firearms.  They want nothing to do with the NRA, and tend to support the aforementioned measures.

 

For conservatives, I would point out that doing nothing is just as bad as doing too much.  They often claim that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."  However, in a crisis situation, the average citizen is not going to know what to do.  If an armed robber or mass shooter were to storm in, and then every moron with a gun whips it out and starts firing randomly, a lot of innocent bystanders are going to get killed.  Then when the police arrive, if you're one of those self-deputized citizens who was trying to stop the bad guy, the police are not going to know this when then see you with your gun out, and will likely shoot you dead.

 

When it comes to gun deaths, a little known fact is that 2/3 of them are suicides, not homicides.  Guns make it easier to kill because they're faster and cause more damage, and a person with a mental illness will not have as much time to think twice about their decision.  So there are certain types of people who should not own firearms, for their own good, and a background check would allow us to identify them.

 

Therefore, if I were running for public office and the issue of gun control came up, here's what I would propose:

 

* Gun safety and responsible ownership should be a higher priority than gun restriction.  People should take self-defense classes, or some form of professional-level training, if they want to own a gun for the purpose of defense.  There are already programs like this, and learning any kind of self-defense would give you the discipline to know when and where it's appropriate to act.  Though I would go one step further.  I would offer a firearms training program, consisting of 300+ hours of drill and instruction like police and military recruits have to undergo, to all members of the public.  It would be voluntary, and funded by taxpayer dollars.  If they want to be the good guy with the gun, they should be taught how.  This won't be 100% foolproof, but it would be a lot better than the paltry training that's currently required for new gun owners.

* Assault weapons, I wouldn't ban, because there's no practical or tactical difference between an assault weapon and a small arm gun.  (Numerous mass shootings, like the VT shooting, were done with small arms.)  Rather I would encourage citizens to learn how to use them properly, like above.  There is, in fact, already a government funded program that teaches citizens how to use assault weapons, and it's called US military service.  If you want to use an assault weapon, then go enlist.

* Establish gun courts on the state and local level, similar to what New York City did in 2016.  These courts would specialize in prosecuting violent crimes committed with guns.  If you use a gun to commit a crime, then you will be harshly punished and sent away for a very long time.  This is not controversial.  If you commit a crime, you lose your Constitutional rights.

* Crack down on the specific types of people most likely to use guns in crimes.  I don't mean racial profiling, I mean behavioral profiling: Gang members, drug dealers, and organized criminals would all fall under intense scrutiny.

* Increase funding for mental health treatment programs.  Very few politicians ever talk about this, or consider it important, because in our society mental illness is not considered on the same tier of severity as physical ailments.  (The GOP healthcare bill, for example, had proposed slashing this funding.)  Yet they will all rail about how the mentally ill should not be allowed to have guns every time there's a high profile shooting; they are quick to blame mental illness, even though statistically a person suffering from a mental illness is more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of a violent crime.  For me, it's more about stopping the gun suicides, because mass shootings are comparatively very rare.

 

Again though, the problem of gun violence is not going to go away until we address the causes of violence itself.  It's not a matter of the specific weapons used, but rather that people are driven to use violence to get what they want in the first place.


After people protested, Trump made some changes to his Stop and Frisk policy. Unfortunately it now involves being stabbed to death by a child with a plastic knife.


#8
Zeff

Zeff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • LocationUK

....When it comes to gun deaths, a little known fact is that 2/3 of them are suicides, not homicides.  Guns make it easier to kill because they're faster and cause more damage, and a person with a mental illness will not have as much time to think twice about their decision.  So there are certain types of people who should not own firearms, for their own good, and a background check would allow us to identify them.

 

Therefore, if I were running for public office and the issue of gun control came up, here's what I would propose:

 

* Gun safety and responsible ownership should be a higher priority than gun restriction.  People should take self-defense classes, or some form of professional-level training, if they want to own a gun for the purpose of defense.  There are already programs like this, and learning any kind of self-defense would give you the discipline to know when and where it's appropriate to act.  Though I would go one step further.  I would offer a firearms training program, consisting of 300+ hours of drill and instruction like police and military recruits have to undergo, to all members of the public.  It would be voluntary, and funded by taxpayer dollars.  If they want to be the good guy with the gun, they should be taught how.  This won't be 100% foolproof, but it would be a lot better than the paltry training that's currently required for new gun owners.

* Assault weapons, I wouldn't ban, because there's no practical or tactical difference between an assault weapon and a small arm gun.  (Numerous mass shootings, like the VT shooting, were done with small arms.)  Rather I would encourage citizens to learn how to use them properly, like above.  There is, in fact, already a government funded program that teaches citizens how to use assault weapons, and it's called US military service.  If you want to use an assault weapon, then go enlist.

* Establish gun courts on the state and local level, similar to what New York City did in 2016.  These courts would specialize in prosecuting violent crimes committed with guns.  If you use a gun to commit a crime, then you will be harshly punished and sent away for a very long time.  This is not controversial.  If you commit a crime, you lose your Constitutional rights.

* Crack down on the specific types of people most likely to use guns in crimes.  I don't mean racial profiling, I mean behavioral profiling: Gang members, drug dealers, and organized criminals would all fall under intense scrutiny.

* Increase funding for mental health treatment programs.  Very few politicians ever talk about this, or consider it important, because in our society mental illness is not considered on the same tier of severity as physical ailments.  (The GOP healthcare bill, for example, had proposed slashing this funding.)  Yet they will all rail about how the mentally ill should not be allowed to have guns every time there's a high profile shooting; they are quick to blame mental illness, even though statistically a person suffering from a mental illness is more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator of a violent crime.  For me, it's more about stopping the gun suicides, because mass shootings are comparatively very rare.

 

Again though, the problem of gun violence is not going to go away until we address the causes of violence itself.  It's not a matter of the specific weapons used, but rather that people are driven to use violence to get what they want in the first place.

So 10,000 homicides per year and 22,000 suicides by guns (roughly speaking).

Gun Murders in England, Scotland and Wales 2011/12
There were 640 Murders / Homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population)
Of these 640 Murders / Homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population).
Source: 
http://www.citizensr...iolence-uk.html

Ending the gun culture would be a process, not an event or legislative act. I think Frozenwolf's suggestions are a good start but some gun-nuts are liable to kill before even that progress is possible.

As for addressing the causes of violence itself: one cannot solve a problem before people generally understand it. That is what prompted my questions about rape to which there was no response. 

Disclosure: I see myself as a conservative liberal.


Edited by Zeff, 30 March 2017 - 03:29 AM.


#9
Cousin Ricky

Cousin Ricky

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,419 posts
  • LocationSt. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

It is true that guns make killing easier, are the most likely weapon to be used in homicide, and most US citizens support measures like background checks and closing gun show loopholes.

 

Technically, it's not a gun show loophole, but a private sales loophole. Gun shows are just one means of applying the loophole.

 

* Assault weapons, I wouldn't ban, because there's no practical or tactical difference between an assault weapon and a small arm gun.  (Numerous mass shootings, like the VT shooting, were done with small arms.)  Rather I would encourage citizens to learn how to use them properly, like above.  There is, in fact, already a government funded program that teaches citizens how to use assault weapons, and it's called US military service.  If you want to use an assault weapon, then go enlist.

 

Magazine size should be limited. One of the reasons some mass shooters have been able to kill so many people is that they didn't have to stop and reload.


“Facts seem to roll off a Christian like water off a duck.” —Great Ape

“How much can you actually doubt something and still maintain that you believe it?” —Josh K, “Alpha and Omega”

“You don’t understand. My crisis of faith is over.

#10
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Technically, it's not a gun show loophole, but a private sales loophole. Gun shows are just one means of applying the loophole.

 

 

Magazine size should be limited. One of the reasons some mass shooters have been able to kill so many people is that they didn't have to stop and reload.

I have just a few problems with this reasoning.  I've listened to the arguments on both sides in the interest of fairness, and I have to admit there are some reasonable arguments as to why the magazine limits won't work.

 

* I don't see it as any consolation that shooters with smaller magazines will only be able to murder 10 people instead of 20.

* Criminals have no problem breaking the law to get things that are illegal.

* It's very easy to circumvent the magazine restriction by carrying multiple firearms, as other mass shooters have done, like at Columbine.

* It only takes about 2 seconds for a moderately experienced gunman to reload a magazine.  Unless everyone is rushing at the shooter (which is ill advised despite what Ben Carson believes) or the police are already shooting back, 2 seconds is not going to buy any time.  Very rarely is the shooter tackled while he's reloading, such as in Tuscon in 2011, and if Jared Loughner didn't have guns, he could have used a vehicle or a bomb.

 

I personally do not own a gun and I should never be allowed to purchase one either, because of my history of mental illness.  So I don't have any stake in opposition to gun control methods I believe have no logical reason to be implemented.  I think the NRA is batshit insane and wouldn't trust them with sharpened pencils.  Then again, 99% of law-abiding gun owners feel the same way about them.

 

 

ETA: We can still discuss this if you like, but I would also like to bring up another issue for this topic.  What would you do about the refugee crisis?  What would you do about refugees who want to enter the United States?


Edited by Frozenwolf150, 30 March 2017 - 04:07 PM.

After people protested, Trump made some changes to his Stop and Frisk policy. Unfortunately it now involves being stabbed to death by a child with a plastic knife.


#11
Cousin Ricky

Cousin Ricky

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,419 posts
  • LocationSt. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

ETA: We can still discuss this if you like, but I would also like to bring up another issue for this topic.  What would you do about the refugee crisis?  What would you do about refugees who want to enter the United States?

 

Let 'em in. Our country has the capacity to absorb them, we bear partial responsibility for the crisis in the first place, and we already have the toughest refugee vetting process in the world, Tweety's ignorant bloviating notwithstanding.


“Facts seem to roll off a Christian like water off a duck.” —Great Ape

“How much can you actually doubt something and still maintain that you believe it?” —Josh K, “Alpha and Omega”

“You don’t understand. My crisis of faith is over.

#12
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Let 'em in. Our country has the capacity to absorb them, we bear partial responsibility for the crisis in the first place, and we already have the toughest refugee vetting process in the world, Tweety's ignorant bloviating notwithstanding.

I say, don't just let in the refugees currently waiting to come to America.  Let in ALL of the refugees from the wars caused by the United States.  They're morally our responsibility and the US has a legal obligation to let in war refugees, but there's also an objective practical reason for it.

 

The people who become refugees are not terrorists, they are fleeing from terrorism.  They are the victims of terrorism, and likely know someone who has died at the hand of terror organizations like ISIS.  Nobody wants ISIS destroyed more than they do, so what better reason do we need to recruit them to our side? Every Muslim who becomes an American citizen is one less Muslim that ISIS can radicalize.  Right now, just as in 2002, the US has need of Muslim Americans to serve as diplomats, translators, educators, and outreach representatives.  It can be reasonably argued that no other country has done more to help the Islamic world than the United States, and this is the argument we need to be making.  The only way to win the War on Terror is to win hearts and minds; military force will only buy time, but the US can't solve every problem with its current approach of "shoot the bad guys!"

 

The people who become refugees are not poor and they're not sponges, they are people with the means to leave their homeland and.  In terms of demographics, they are educated and already come with job skills, so they won't be putting a strain on the US welfare system at all.  Their skills also tend to be different from those of American workers, so they won't be competing for the same jobs either.  Letting the refugees in would increase the US working population, which would increase the number of US taxpayers and therefore generate more tax revenue.  They will be part of the US economy and will buy consumer goods, which will generate even more revenue.  Admitting refugees is something deficit hawks should actually be in agreement with, if they weren't total hypocrites.

 

Also, since this figure was already brought up in the previous discussion, you are far more likely to be killed by yourself than by a refugee.  The chance of a Muslim refugee becoming radicalized is 1 in 3.64 billion, and the chances of being killed by any refugee is less than 1/10th of that.


  • Ungodly and Cousin Ricky like this

After people protested, Trump made some changes to his Stop and Frisk policy. Unfortunately it now involves being stabbed to death by a child with a plastic knife.


#13
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,319 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

  They're morally our responsibility and the US has a legal obligation to let in war refugees, 

 

Thank you for saying this. I completely agree.  If we are going to drop bombs on a country are we doing it to stimulate our economy and enrich the owners of death/kill companies?  Or are we acting out of concern for the well being of the people we are bombing (analogous to God's love?)?  

 

If we are creating refugees by pumping up a war directly or indirectly, and if we have morals, then it is clear what we should care about those refugees.

 

Not that we should only care about people we have displaced or nearly killed.


  • Cousin Ricky likes this

"Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them."

--Lao Tzu

 


#14
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

Since it seems the US is once again at war, despite this being something Trump ran against on the campaign trail and repeatedly criticized Hillary Clinton for being too hawkish on, I would just like to know why nobody in the news media has asked Trump what the US plans on doing to help the victims of the sarin gas attack.  The neocons who are pulling Trump's strings (yes it's they, not the Russians, given that Trump just bombed Putin's ally Assad) don't give a shit about the innocents killed in war, don't care about the refugees that our wars create, and certainly aren't going to lift a finger to help the children who were choking to death in the news footage of the attacks.

 

 

This is why everyone praising Trump for his decision is a damn hypocrite.  Shocked as he pretended to be when he saw the images, I never once heard him say, nor do I expect to hear him say that the families hurt in the attacks are welcome to come to the US for medical treatment and asylum.  This is how the Democrats need to be challenging him.  Say that if he really cares about the children he spoke about, then this is what he should stand up and do, otherwise he should come out and admit he was lying.

 

The US can't shoot its way out of this war.  This isn't a war that can be won without helping the victims.

 

Incidentally, one of the rare exceptions and one dictator the US was able to bring down without screwing over the entire region in the process was Milosevic in 1999.  There wasn't a single US casualty in the entire operation, and the way we went about it was by obtaining a U.N. criminal indictment to arrest Milosevic as a war criminal.  This is how Bush should have gone about taking out Saddam Hussein, and I'm not just saying this in hindsight, as the Second Gulf War took place in 2003 after we already had that historical precedent.


After people protested, Trump made some changes to his Stop and Frisk policy. Unfortunately it now involves being stabbed to death by a child with a plastic knife.


#15
Joe Bloe

Joe Bloe

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 9,299 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Shocked as he pretended to be when he saw the images, I never once heard him say, nor do I expect to hear him say that the families hurt in the attacks are welcome to come to the US for medical treatment and asylum. 

 

 

I think you're right. He doesn't give a damn about helping people. He'd rather cause harm because that gets a bigger reaction from the crowd --- Remember that time during the election campaign when he boasted that he could shoot someone in Fifth Avenue, NY, and get away with it. https://www.theguard...not-lose-voters

 

Or that time when he suggested disarming Clinton's bodyguard: "Take their guns away, let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away, OK? It'll be very dangerous."

http://edition.cnn.c...secret-service/


Believe nothing you hear and only half what you see.

#16
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,319 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

I agree that Tweety does not care about children in general or the child victims of this war.

 

Tweety is hostile by default.  Everyone is assumed to be a threat.  This is the way an emotionally stunted egotist thinks, always in terms of himself.

 

He seems incapable of compassion, or at least disinterested in it.


"Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them."

--Lao Tzu

 


#17
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,858 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

I have been looking over this thread.

 

Trump is not the problem.  Trump is a symptom.  Trump is like the flies that buzz around a foul garbage can.  It is not the flies giving off the foul stench.  That is what attracted the flies.

 

If America had not been consumed by rot and decay, Trump would not have been elected.  He was elected, because the foul stench that America has become, drew Trump in.

 

I repeat.  Trump is not the problem.  He is the flies buzzing about the can.


  • Cousin Ricky likes this
Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#18
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,319 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
I think the dichotomy is unnecessary, Tweety can be a problem and a symptom of deeper issues at the same time.

Further, I reassert that it bigly is a problem having a bloviating ignoramus in the White House.

"Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them."

--Lao Tzu

 


#19
jonathanlobl

jonathanlobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,858 posts
  • LocationJackson Heights (NYC)

I think the dichotomy is unnecessary, Tweety can be a problem and a symptom of deeper issues at the same time.

Further, I reassert that it bigly is a problem having a bloviating ignoramus in the White House.

 

You're right on both counts.  I wonder if we can ever recover from this wound.


Minister, Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (02/20/2002)
"We don't know and we don't care."

Minister, First Church of Atheism (05/10/2008)


"Never trust the clergy!" Jonathan Lobl

#20
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America

I have been looking over this thread.

 

Trump is not the problem.  Trump is a symptom.  Trump is like the flies that buzz around a foul garbage can.  It is not the flies giving off the foul stench.  That is what attracted the flies.

 

If America had not been consumed by rot and decay, Trump would not have been elected.  He was elected, because the foul stench that America has become, drew Trump in.

 

I repeat.  Trump is not the problem.  He is the flies buzzing about the can.

No disagreements there.  An elected official is merely the representative of the people who desire and believe in such things.  Trump is a pathological liar and conspiracy theorist, ignorant of scientific and historical facts, violent and impulsive, a cowardly braggart, devoid of any real ideas or solutions, completely lacking in empathy towards other human beings, and stuck living in a past decade that didn't really exist.  In other words, he's the perfect representative for many Americans.  Half of Americans believe in CTs of some kind.  More than half believe in creationism.  This is not a coincidence, and the fact that such people voted overwhelmingly for him is not a surprise.

 

That said, he could not have won on the votes of the deplorables alone.  Most of his votes came from the working class, who were desperate for a quick and easy solution to the complex economic problems they face, and he conned them into thinking he actually cared about them because neither party's establishment was talking about the issues important to them.  It's the non-racist Trump voters who are going to get screwed over the hardest, and sure enough, he's already broken many of the promises he made to them.  Hell, the first thing he did after the election was to fill the swamp he promised to drain with several tons of excrement, and his very first act on taking office was essentially to raise taxes on the middle class.

 

And that's the reason I started this topic.  I want to prove that it's possible to come up with better solutions and ideas than the ones he's proposed, and I want to show the economic Trump voters that there is a better way.  Many of them had admitted they would have voted for Bernie Sanders had he been on the ballot.


Edited by Frozenwolf150, 14 April 2017 - 05:51 PM.

After people protested, Trump made some changes to his Stop and Frisk policy. Unfortunately it now involves being stabbed to death by a child with a plastic knife.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: politics, president, trump, dumbass

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users