• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The last nail in the coffin for Pelosi and the demiclownic party. Mr Trump you may pass go and collect $200 for 4 more
 
alasdairm said:


"...if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)."

who talks like this? he's such a buffoon.

alasdair
Click to expand...


It's hard to believe this is even real. First of all yeah, who does talk like that? Also, is he saying he's totally destroyed and obliterated Turkey's economy before? Or that he's done so to some other country's economy? Is that true?

xaddictx said:
The last nail in the coffin for Pelosi and the demiclownic party. Mr Trump you may pass go and collect $200 for 4 more
Click to expand...

What's the last nail in the coffin for the democrats? Trump's twitter post?

JGrimez said:
And I know that a lot of people who claim to just be about "gun control" have the ultimate aim to ban guns.
Click to expand...

But a lot of people don't. For example I want existing laws enforced so they can't be easily bypassed (gun show sales), and I want there to be an upper limit on magazine size and rate of fire. I don't want people to have their hand guns and rifles and other stuff taken away. I fully understand that guns don't kill people, people kill people. However guns are the easily available tool that makes it easiest to kill people. So giving people ready access to guns that can fire off 30, 50 rounds in a matter of seconds gives people who are inclined to commit mass murders a tool that allows them to do that much more effectively. Whereas if all they could get is a handgun, they'd be able to kill a lot less people before being stopped/noticed/etc. I think it makes sense to think this way. I understand also that at this point there are tons of them already in circulation, but is the answer "oh well I guess we're fucked, let's not do anything"? Making it so you couldn't go buy them legally would prevent some people who committed mass shootings from having the tools to kill more people more quickly. At what cost? So law-abiding gun owners can't have their favorite toy anymore? Mass shootings are happening almost daily, they're no normalized at this point that people are forgetting how horrible they are and prioritizing "because I want an AR-15 it'd fun and I like it!!" over "we could reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings".
 
I’m splitting out the “structure of Congress thread” and hope it keeps going.

Edit: I also put some posts into gun debate and 2020 candidates thread.

Also, if you want to post personal musings about yourself and to attack/insult others, maybe do it in the Social thread? Start a blog?

This is the Trump presidency thread, please post accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Nah I just wanted to curse and get away with it, nobody here would care that I said that about Trump lol. If I said that Hillary was a *bleep* though I'd be getting warned or censored.

This Syria pull-out has placed Trump back on the fence for me.
 
It must be hard to be so oppressed. I don't know where you get the strength to go on in the face of such persecution...
 
Xorkoth said:
Making it so you couldn't go buy them legally would prevent some people who committed mass shootings from having the tools to kill more people more quickly. At what cost? So law-abiding gun owners can't have their favorite toy anymore? Mass shootings are happening almost daily, they're no normalized at this point that people are forgetting how horrible they are and prioritizing "because I want an AR-15 it'd fun and I like it!!" over "we could reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings".
Click to expand...

As I think thru this, there are two thoughts that come to mind:

First, if the guns aren't available to the mass killers, they'll find other tools. This is a common response, but in reality, not too realistic IMO. To try poisoning a group is possible, but most toxins are heavily watched and secured to where it would be difficult to get enough to make a killing (no pun intended). Likewise, the more common response is 'bombs', which we could point to real and recent examples that have hurt us. The Unabomber, for example, killed a lot of people but wasn't stopped during his many years of terror:
Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski mailed or hand-delivered a series of increasingly sophisticated bombs that cumulatively killed three people and injured 23 others. In all, 16 bombs were attributed to Kaczynski. While the bombing devices varied widely through the years

Or the Oklahoma City bomber who achieved his goal with commercially available materials:

McVeigh and Nichols purchased or stole the materials they needed to manufacture the bomb, which they stored in rented sheds. In August 1994, McVeigh obtained nine Kinestiks from gun collector Roger E. Moore, and ignited the devices with Nichols outside Nichols's home in Herington, Kansas.[35][36] On September 30, 1994, Nichols bought forty 50-pound (23 kg) bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer from Mid-Kansas Coop in McPherson, Kansas, enough to fertilize 12.5 acres (5.1 hectares) of farmland at a rate of 160 pounds (73 kg) of nitrogen per acre (.4 ha), an amount commonly used for corn. Nichols bought an additional 50-pound (23 kg) bag on October 18, 1994.[24] McVeigh approached Fortier and asked him to assist with the bombing project, but he refused.[37][38]

McVeigh and Nichols then robbed Moore in his home of $60,000 worth of guns, gold, silver, and jewels, transporting the property in the victim's own van.[37] McVeigh wrote a letter to Moore in which he claimed that the robbery had been committed by government agents.[39] Items stolen from Moore were later found in Nichols's home and in a storage shed that he had rented.[40][41]

In October 1994, McVeigh showed Michael Fortier and his wife, Lori, a diagram he had drawn of the bomb he wanted to build.[42] McVeigh planned to construct a bomb containing more than 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, mixed with about 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of liquid nitromethane and 350 pounds (160 kg) of Tovex. Including the weight of the sixteen 55-U.S.-gallon drums in which the explosive mixture was to be packed, the bomb would have a combined weight of about 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg).[43] McVeigh had originally intended to use hydrazine rocket fuel, but it proved to be too expensive.[37]

Then of course, we have the Boston Marathon bombers
Evidence found near the blast sites included bits of metal, nails, ball bearings,[51] black nylon pieces from a backpack,[52] remains of an electronic circuit board, and wiring.[51][53] A pressure cooker lid was found on a nearby rooftop.[54] Both of the improvised explosive devices were pressure cooker bombs manufactured by the bombers.[55][56][57] Authorities confirmed that the brothers used bomb-making instructions found in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's Inspire magazine.[58][59]

So, each of these had readily public access to materials to carry out their intent - no guns needed. Hindsight shows where we now more closely watch fertilizer purchases, and there has progressively been more active internet monitoring to uncover such efforts...but for most of these incidents even if internet monitoring or local law enforcement engagement (think local PD and FBI visits to the Tsaernaev brothers, to any of the other mass shooters in recent years) - many are on the radar but not restricted from carrying out their intentions.

This first thought is taking a turn on me - the point was bombing remains an accessible tool, even when we improve our surveillance of the materials and who access them. Bombers simply move to other materials. We learn as a society and act to better control access, but only after the fact. My point started blowing up into the fact we have mechanisms in place to identify at-risk persons, but we continue to FAIL at addressing them before they act.

The second thought comes back to this

Xorkoth said:
Making it so you couldn't go buy them legally would prevent some people who committed mass shootings from having the tools to kill more people more quickly. At what cost? So law-abiding gun owners can't have their favorite toy anymore?... people are forgetting how horrible they are and prioritizing "because I want an AR-15 it'd fun and I like it!!"...
Click to expand...

How many gun nuts who 'love their AR-15' are the ones committing these crimes? How many of them are the ones who have their weapons accessible and taken by mas shooters to commit these crimes? The proposal is to further restrict or punish these gun-lovers when in fact THEY are the ones who spend the time to train and know how to properly use them INCLUDING securing them in gun safes and keeping them out of the hands of others. They aren't pissed people want to take away their toy - their point is THEY know what they are doing and shouldn't be the ones infringed upon, NOR are they the ones contributing to these mass killings.

The point is to address the shooters before they shoot. Identify them, and secure them so they cannot access ANY means of mass killing. Address the problem, not the guy next to him that isn't part of the problem. People conflate gun ownership as feeding into gun availability for unstable persons about to go on a rampage. That's simply not the case - not when there are hundreds of thousands of weapons available on the black market, or lying unsecured in homes, where these unstable persons are getting their easy access tools of destruction.
 
Good points. It's true that almost all of the mass shooters preceded these actions with obvious red flag posting on social media, or in the case of the parkland shooting, people actually called into the FBI multiple times saying they believed this guy was going to do something.

JGrimez said:
If I said that Hillary was a *bleep* though I'd be getting warned or censored.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that to be the case these days? Because I don't.
 
it's not the case because calling hillary a cunt isn't against the ce&p rules. it's pretty straightforward but you have to misrepresent/ignore that to play the victim of leftie oppression :)

alasdair
 
Trump's getting his nuts beaten inside of him



@ 14:14

VERY LOUD LAUGHTER

Giuliani I know you've been a crook since late 2001. You're a piece of shit and now the whole nation laughs at you because they see you for what you are. GOOD JOB DUDE.

I foresee a Trump victory with 3 million "illegal votes" again. I really like Biden like Hillary, the way he talks = 100% great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top