President Trump

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

Aglets wrote:Alright, now let's get real. We all know what the real highlight of the remainder of this election cycle will be.

Who's excited for Kaine v Pence next week!?!?!?!?!
I'll prob try to watch it but doesn't seem exciting at all


The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21034
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: President Trump

Post by Gergall »

JarJarDrinks wrote:appear human
Image

I assume this move was practiced and I'm still impressed. Appears to be human.
Greg Zinn
Image

JosephPhillips
DS Region: Endor
DS Region: Endor
Posts: 1801
Joined: December 27th, 2008, 3:38 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: President Trump

Post by JosephPhillips »

quickdraw3457 wrote:So trump won because he didn't talk about Hillarys bodily functions, didn't say anything overtly racist, made sure to talk louder when Hillary was speaking, and people probably tuned out after 30 minutes. Got it.
I thought his comments about stop-and-frisk were pretty overtly racist.
"Real wisdom is knowing when to learn from your own mistakes and when to learn from the mistakes of others."

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14982
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: President Trump

Post by Hunter »

JarJarDrinks wrote:
Hunter wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote: I thought it was pretty much universally agreed upon that Hillary "won" the debate while Trump made himself look horrible (even more than he normally does)
Are you part of that "pretty much universal" agreement? Did you even see it?
Of course I watched it. I wasn't even giving my own opinion. I was just going by pretty much ALL the major news outlets. I even watched fox news afterwards and they immediately said Clinton was the winner.

If you want my actual opinion [snip]
Your opinion was known before the debate happened. There's only one reason I asked whether you saw it, and that's to make sure you didn't watch. And then if you said you DID watch, then your attention would need to be directed to this:
JarJarDrinks wrote:I don't know why you even watched since your mind is obviously made up and nothing will change it.

User avatar
cooleo1c
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 14635
Joined: May 11th, 2006, 2:10 pm
Location: Space Olympics (Year 3022)

Re: President Trump

Post by cooleo1c »

Did I miss anything?
Thanks!

User avatar
Gergall
Rules Advocate
Posts: 21034
Joined: December 9th, 2002, 1:14 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: President Trump

Post by Gergall »

cooleo1c wrote:Did I miss anything?
Of value?

No.
Greg Zinn
Image

mserisman
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: August 19th, 2005, 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Re: President Trump

Post by mserisman »

JosephPhillips wrote:
quickdraw3457 wrote:So trump won because he didn't talk about Hillarys bodily functions, didn't say anything overtly racist, made sure to talk louder when Hillary was speaking, and people probably tuned out after 30 minutes. Got it.
I thought his comments about stop-and-frisk were pretty overtly racist.
It's an interesting question really. The facts and the statistics show (see Tipping Point) how this can work.

New York cleaned up their crime by huge percentages using this approach, where as Chicago has not. So is it racist to have law and order and reduce people getting shot and killed, or racist to pretend everyone is fine and increase exponentially the number of people getting shot and killed?

Now that is a real question.

We can all pretend that we shouldn't profile people, and randomly pull elderly white women out of TSA lines, as if that will do anything. Or we can play the odds and keep people safe.

It's an interesting debate. One I think liberals lost a long time ago in reality, but are more than willing to let minorities get shot and killed to avoid potentially offending them?

I am loathe to support anything Trump said in that debate (except trade) because it was delivered like a drunk guy posturing in a bar, but the underlying principle was not overtly wrong.
"Never content to just rest on your laurels, you are always still reaching skyward, looking to achieve staggering new heights in douchebaggery." - Hunter towards someone who will not be named

User avatar
darkjediknight11
Communications Advocate
Posts: 23137
Joined: April 17th, 2005, 5:26 pm
Location: Chicago
GEMP Username: djk11

Re: President Trump

Post by darkjediknight11 »

-Keith Brown
Image

User avatar
sac89837
Member
Posts: 10977
Joined: November 29th, 2007, 4:06 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by sac89837 »

mserisman wrote:
It's an interesting question really. The facts and the statistics show (see Tipping Point) how this can work.

New York cleaned up their crime by huge percentages using this approach, where as Chicago has not. So is it racist to have law and order and reduce people getting shot and killed, or racist to pretend everyone is fine and increase exponentially the number of people getting shot and killed?
Image

Please don't take Malcolm Gladwell seriously. It's only a debate if you completely ignore science.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 97/?no-ist
On a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow.

"Bounty Hunters don't do brunch."

User avatar
Shadow 13
Member
Posts: 16489
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 6:34 pm
GEMP Username: shadow13

Re: President Trump

Post by Shadow 13 »

mserisman wrote:New York cleaned up their crime by huge percentages using this approach, where as Chicago has not. So is it racist to have law and order and reduce people getting shot and killed, or racist to pretend everyone is fine and increase exponentially the number of people getting shot and killed?
Sending up the bat signal to Casey on this one. In the meantime:

The crime rate in New York was on a long term downward trend before Rudy Giuliani became mayor, under Dinkins' Safe Streets Safe Cities program, along with serious and seriously enforced gun control measures. Chicago has nothing on NY's gun control laws.

Rudy then started Stop and Frisk, which was unconstitutional in its application--police used it to disproportionately target POC. And Rudy took credit for all of the decrease in crime, despite the fact that the trend started 36 months before he became mayor.
ryan french
rebel strike team founder
two-time washington state champion
rhendon wrote:why not just elect a puppy as president, or mikefrench.

User avatar
jimli
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1634
Joined: June 11th, 2006, 8:50 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by jimli »

A lot of people are saying that the sniffles was a telltale sign that Donald snorted cocaine before the debate. Look, I don't personally know, it's just that a lot of people, many people, the best people, are saying that Donald was hitting the night salt, sniffed some of that rich man's aspirin, f*ing with the white last (EDIT: sorry, Monday) night before the debate. Again, it's just what people are saying.
Last edited by jimli on September 29th, 2016, 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

i think it's more that NYC actually enforces its gun control laws, and doesn't have an adjacent state with little to no gun control laws that makes gun trafficking extremely easy.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by mikefrench »

mserisman wrote:We can all pretend that we shouldn't profile people, and randomly pull elderly white women out of TSA lines, as if that will do anything. Or we can play the odds and keep people safe.
i think profiling is absolutely reasonable under certain circumstances. negative profiling, like not randomly checking a 76 year old white lady at the airport, makes complete sense. and if you can have previous evidence that gives you reason to profile, go ahead.

but i think the bigger problem is, this is wasting police time. we should be pushing for community policing, investigative work, focusing on felony prosecutions and not petty drug possession stuff. not randomly pulling out people and frisking them, that's a huge waste of time.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26421
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: President Trump

Post by JarJarDrinks »

mserisman wrote:
JosephPhillips wrote:
quickdraw3457 wrote:So trump won because he didn't talk about Hillarys bodily functions, didn't say anything overtly racist, made sure to talk louder when Hillary was speaking, and people probably tuned out after 30 minutes. Got it.
I thought his comments about stop-and-frisk were pretty overtly racist.
It's an interesting question really. The facts and the statistics show (see Tipping Point) how this can work.

New York cleaned up their crime by huge percentages using this approach, where as Chicago has not. So is it racist to have law and order and reduce people getting shot and killed, or racist to pretend everyone is fine and increase exponentially the number of people getting shot and killed?

Now that is a real question.

We can all pretend that we shouldn't profile people, and randomly pull elderly white women out of TSA lines, as if that will do anything. Or we can play the odds and keep people safe.

It's an interesting debate. One I think liberals lost a long time ago in reality, but are more than willing to let minorities get shot and killed to avoid potentially offending them?

I am loathe to support anything Trump said in that debate (except trade) because it was delivered like a drunk guy posturing in a bar, but the underlying principle was not overtly wrong.
Lol. I'm glad people already pointed out how stop n frisk and crime going down aren't actually related.

But more importantly: it wouldn't matter even if it did cause crime to go down.

It was ruled unconstitutional. Like we could make it a law that all americans have to wear electronic bracelets so we can all be tracked and it'd probably reduce crime. We could require cameras be installed in every home and it would probably reduce domestic violence.

See it's not only about reducing crime. It's about not giving up our civil liberties.
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

User avatar
Aglets
Retired Advocate
Posts: 19370
Joined: January 14th, 2004, 9:08 pm
Location: Bel Air, MD

Re: President Trump

Post by Aglets »

JarJarDrinks wrote: See it's not only about reducing crime. It's about not giving up our civil liberties.
Was it you who said just a few days ago about how the ends justify the means? :P wrt Trump losing the election. Doesn't matter what people say/do, as long as he loses?

Here it is:
The ends justify the means when the ends include defeating evilness.
Interesting how different people use a sliding scale of when that phrase is appropriate. Note: I am not for electronic monitoring bracelets for all.
Image
Rian Johnson wrote: I would be worried if everybody across the board was like "Yea, that was a good movie." It's much more exciting to me when you get a group of people who are coming up to you.....really really excited about it. And then there are other people who walk out literally saying that was the worst movie I've ever seen. Having those two extremes to me is the mark of the type of movie that I want to make.

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26421
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: President Trump

Post by JarJarDrinks »

Hunter wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote:
Hunter wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote: I thought it was pretty much universally agreed upon that Hillary "won" the debate while Trump made himself look horrible (even more than he normally does)
Are you part of that "pretty much universal" agreement? Did you even see it?
Of course I watched it. I wasn't even giving my own opinion. I was just going by pretty much ALL the major news outlets. I even watched fox news afterwards and they immediately said Clinton was the winner.

If you want my actual opinion [snip]
Your opinion was known before the debate happened.
No I certainly didn't decide that Hillary won the debate untill I watched it. I was actually nervous that she would get thrown off her game since she's been used to debating against normal intellegent politicians.

But it looked like she was pretty prepared for whatever nonsense Trump dished out. WOuldn't you agree?
Hunter wrote:There's only one reason I asked whether you saw it, and that's to make sure you didn't watch.
Oh good. It sounded like you were disagreeing with the fact that "it was pretty much universally agreed upon that Hillary "won" the debate". Glad to see you aren't trying to cling to nonsense like "some people got drunk and missed half the debate so Trump actually won" like Mavan is.
Hunter wrote:And then if you said you DID watch, then your attention would need to be directed to this:
JarJarDrinks wrote:I don't know why you even watched since your mind is obviously made up and nothing will change it.
Wow, Hunter this is pretty pathetic if you're trying to prove some point.

I never meant to imply that the people shouldn't watch the debate unless they were undecided. What I was saying is that mavan and dorshe both implied that their mind wasnt made up and there was a chance that the debate could sway them. That was obviously *.

I fully admit that there was no chance that the debate would sway me. Dorshe has since admitted the same after I called him out. Mavan should do so as well.
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26421
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: President Trump

Post by JarJarDrinks »

Aglets wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote: See it's not only about reducing crime. It's about not giving up our civil liberties.
Was it you who said just a few days ago about how the ends justify the means? :P wrt Trump losing the election. Doesn't matter what people say/do, as long as he loses?

Here it is:
The ends justify the means when the ends include defeating evilness.
Interesting how different people use a sliding scale of when that phrase is appropriate. Note: I am not for electronic monitoring bracelets for all.
Well obviously some people have a different place where the scale slides to. All I'm saying is that "reducing crime" isn't the only thing that matters.

I'm fine w/ walking through an Xray machine to board a plane. I'm not fine w/ a TSA agent sticking their hand up my butt.
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

mserisman
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: August 19th, 2005, 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Re: President Trump

Post by mserisman »

This is how debates work. Although no one addressed what is more racist - to profile and hassle people or to let them get killed lest you offend. I am not saying we should violate civil liberties, I am just asking the question (to a couple of rural white guys from small town Washington who have, at most, spent a day or two in thier lifetime in Chicago or NYC)

If you study the Chicago case you would see a few trends. One, police in Chicago are effectively nuetured and very little proactive policing is happening right now due to the media and civil claims. I get the claim that having Chicago border Gary, Indiana is somehow the reason for guns, but how is that different from NYC And Newark, NJ? NYC is within an hour of three states, whereas Chicago has only one close border.

I think it's overtly racist to claim that inner city minorities in Chicago are shooting and killing each other hourly, when it could be that NRA loving white folks from rural Iowa are driving a couple hours into the city to do drive bys?

Somehow we need to just look at reality. Making a claim that "self policing" is the answer doesn't fit the narrative at all. Remember, the narrative held by suburban liberals is that it's all someone else's fault. Self policing infers some local community responsibility and accountability, and that just won't do.
"Never content to just rest on your laurels, you are always still reaching skyward, looking to achieve staggering new heights in douchebaggery." - Hunter towards someone who will not be named

User avatar
Aglets
Retired Advocate
Posts: 19370
Joined: January 14th, 2004, 9:08 pm
Location: Bel Air, MD

Re: President Trump

Post by Aglets »

Perhaps if only the big cities with most of the homicide problems (ie Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit.......) could ever get some Democratic politicians in power as mayors.....state's attorneys..........city council members......then we'd see some real change happen.

Darn that conservative obstructionism.
Image
Rian Johnson wrote: I would be worried if everybody across the board was like "Yea, that was a good movie." It's much more exciting to me when you get a group of people who are coming up to you.....really really excited about it. And then there are other people who walk out literally saying that was the worst movie I've ever seen. Having those two extremes to me is the mark of the type of movie that I want to make.

User avatar
Aglets
Retired Advocate
Posts: 19370
Joined: January 14th, 2004, 9:08 pm
Location: Bel Air, MD

Re: President Trump

Post by Aglets »

On gun control and gun crime rates. For the record I am for the 2nd Amendment and I am also for smart gun control laws.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-la ... nd-crimes/

Conclusion:
An August 2013 CDC report looked at rates for gun homicides in the 50 most populous metropolitan areas. It found that for 2009-2010, the top gun murder rate areas were, in order: New Orleans, Memphis, Detroit, Birmingham, St. Louis, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Philadelphia and Chicago.

Six of those cities are in states with poor scores for their gun laws, while the other four get a “C” or better. Chicago, which placed last in the top 10, had a ban on handguns at the time. There’s no discernible pattern among those cities, nor clear or convincing evidence in these statistics that shows more gun laws lead to more or less gun crime.
Image
Rian Johnson wrote: I would be worried if everybody across the board was like "Yea, that was a good movie." It's much more exciting to me when you get a group of people who are coming up to you.....really really excited about it. And then there are other people who walk out literally saying that was the worst movie I've ever seen. Having those two extremes to me is the mark of the type of movie that I want to make.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic”