In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 06 2017 00:01 Mohdoo wrote: Weird incident. If it really was a messaging group, this is a step too far. Unless it was some kinda 200+ person messaging group somehow. Or if it was named Harvard something. Harvard has a lot of image value to maintain and having some rich shits mucking it up with foul stuff isn't going to be allowed.
In the article:
Two incoming students told the Crimson the group was at one point called “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens.”
(I don't use facebook) Is a message group viewable by anyone or just the name, or what?
I'd like to see the exact jokes they got banned for, just because I'm a little bit distrustful of how media would choose to relate some of the borderline content that exists out there. Anyway, sad thing to have ruin what was no doubt a lot of hard work, but hard to feel a ton of sympathy if the description is accurate :/
An example from the article was (and Im too lazy to go back and specifically quote it, but this is the gist) using "pinata time" to refer to the hanging of a mexican child.
It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
Pretty much the golden dream of gun control TBH. Terrorists weren't able to get guns, but the police gunned them down.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
If everyone in the area had had guns they could have stopped the attackers by shooting the van though. Or something. He's a lunatic. This is a man that thinks saying "Russia says they don't have dirt on me" refutes the idea that Russia has dirt on him.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
It's baffling the stupidity on display. If the attackers had guns, you'd bet your ass more than 7 people would have been killed. Every time a gun debate comes up someone mentions "well people can still kill without guns", and every time they need to be reminded of the obvious: guns make killing so much easier. We should be grateful that they were shut down so quickly, and that they weren't able to inflict more damage.
On June 05 2017 15:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So apparently Robert Mueller has brought in Watergate veteran James Quarles as part of the investigation.
Well the guy is candid enough to publicly admit he only ever pronounced his drain the swamp slogan because the crowd liked it. And his audience is stupid enough not to see how and why that would be offensive to them.
Trump apparently thinks he is still at the apprentice, and clearly his supporters don't notice or don't see the problem.
His supporters just enjoy seeing him humiliate/trigger his oppositions.
That or his supporters are not reflected enough to think "wait a sec, he is saying to our face he doesn't give a fuck or even believe what he's saying, he's just saying what we applaude to to get elected".
But ye, maybe they are super clever and he was just sayin that to infuriate dems and the whole room of course got it. Good one.
Never attribute to malice that which is explained sufficiently by stupidity. That would assume a high level of competence on the part of a large number of people, and when it comes to Trump supporters... forget it. I'm actually shocked that people were laughing as he was giving his spiel though. That was a sad moment for any and everyone who bought into his BS.
Trump supporters are mostly people that understand how the game is being played: whatever a candidate says during the campaign doesn't necessarily mean that will be achieved (see Obama w/ him promising to pull troops out + Obamacare not working out exactly that people wanted).
Their mindset is more of the traditional American standard where they fully respect the tradition of the amendments and that it is absolutely okay to be take abusive strategies to the nth degree.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
If everyone in the area had had guns they could have stopped the attackers by shooting the van though. Or something. He's a lunatic. This is a man that thinks saying "Russia says they don't have dirt on me" refutes the idea that Russia has dirt on him.
If everyone had guns and started shooting no one would know who was good or bad and you've got undisciplined mass fire happening in a public space.
The real issue with "defend yourself" gun rhetoric
I can't stand people who think that guns solve problems.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
It's baffling the stupidity on display. If the attackers had guns, you'd bet your ass more than 7 people would have been killed. Every time a gun debate comes up someone mentions "well people can still kill without guns", and every time they need to be reminded of the obvious: guns make killing so much easier. We should be grateful that they were shut down so quickly, and that they weren't able to inflict more damage.
Well if they had guns and so did everyone else, the other people would have used their guns to stop the suspects within seconds. Self-policing.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
It's baffling the stupidity on display. If the attackers had guns, you'd bet your ass more than 7 people would have been killed. Every time a gun debate comes up someone mentions "well people can still kill without guns", and every time they need to be reminded of the obvious: guns make killing so much easier. We should be grateful that they were shut down so quickly, and that they weren't able to inflict more damage.
Well if they had guns and so did everyone else, the other people would have used their guns to stop the suspects within seconds. Self-policing.
See Zeromus's post above. It's asinine to believe in what you just said, because it never works like you want it to.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
If everyone in the area had had guns they could have stopped the attackers by shooting the van though. Or something. He's a lunatic. This is a man that thinks saying "Russia says they don't have dirt on me" refutes the idea that Russia has dirt on him.
If everyone had guns and started shooting no one would know who was good or bad and you've got undisciplined mass fire happening in a public space.
The real issue with "defend yourself" gun rhetoric
I can't stand people who think that guns solve problems.
I liked this video as a means to show how wel that works. + Show Spoiler +
Legal, you need to stop your shitposting for a while and try and establish some credibility as an intelligent human being if you want to be this sarcastic all the time. Right now when you sarcastically say dumb things people read them and go "yeah, I can see LegalLord seriously having that opinion" and then respond as if you meant it. People just aren't getting your constant sarcasm.
When President Donald Trump addressed NATO leaders during his debut overseas trip little more than a week ago, he surprised and disappointed European allies who hoped—and expected—he would use his speech to explicitly reaffirm America’s commitment to mutual defense of the alliance’s members, a one-for-all, all-for-one provision that looks increasingly urgent as Eastern European members worry about the threat from a resurgent Russia on their borders.
That part of the Trump visit is known.
What’s not is that the president also disappointed—and surprised—his own top national security officials by failing to include the language reaffirming the so-called Article 5 provision in his speech. National security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all supported Trump doing so and had worked in the weeks leading up to the trip to make sure it was included in the speech, according to five sources familiar with the episode. They thought it was, and a White House aide even told The New York Times the day before the line was definitely included.
It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences—without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.
“They had the right speech and it was cleared through McMaster,” said a source briefed by National Security Council officials in the immediate aftermath of the NATO meeting. “As late as that same morning, it was the right one.”
Added a senior White House official, “There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked on”—and it wasn’t the one Trump gave. “They didn’t know it had been removed,” said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. “It was only upon delivery.”
The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about NATO and insistence on lecturing NATO allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort; another version relayed to others by several White House aides is that Trump’s nationalist chief strategist Steve Bannon and policy aide Stephen Miller played a role in the deletion. (According to NSC spokesman Michael Anton, who did not dispute this account, “The president attended the summit to show his support for the NATO alliance, including Article 5. His continued effort to secure greater defense commitments from other nations is making our alliance stronger.”)
Either way, the episode suggests that what has been portrayed—correctly—as a major rift within the 70-year-old Atlantic alliance is also a significant moment of rupture inside the Trump administration, with the president withholding crucial information from his top national security officials—and then embarrassing them by forcing them to go out in public with awkward, unconvincing, after-the-fact claims that the speech really did amount to a commitment they knew it did not make.
The frantic, last-minute maneuvering over the speech, I’m told, included “MM&T,” as some now refer to the trio of Mattis, McMaster and Tillerson, lobbying in the days leading up to it to get a copy of the president’s planned remarks and then pushing hard once they obtained the draft to get the Article 5 language in it, only to see it removed again. All of which further confirms a level of White House dysfunction that veterans of both parties I’ve talked with in recent months say is beyond anything they can recall.
And it suggests Trump’s impulsive instincts on foreign policy are not necessarily going to be contained by the team of experienced leaders he’s hired for Defense, the NSC and State. “We’re all seeing the fallout from it—and all the fallout was anticipated,” the White House official told me.
They may be the “adults in the room,” as the saying going around Washington these past few months had it. But Trump—and the NATO case shows this all too clearly—isn’t in the room with them.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
If everyone in the area had had guns they could have stopped the attackers by shooting the van though. Or something. He's a lunatic. This is a man that thinks saying "Russia says they don't have dirt on me" refutes the idea that Russia has dirt on him.
If everyone had guns and started shooting no one would know who was good or bad and you've got undisciplined mass fire happening in a public space.
The real issue with "defend yourself" gun rhetoric
I can't stand people who think that guns solve problems.
Most republican policies/philosophy revolve around the fact that people have the awareness and ability to make correct/moral decisions. In an environment where that is true, giving everyone guns would indeed be the right thing to do to defend terrorism/violence from the few bad apples. right wingers would argue the personal responsibility route to the grave.
Your stance is essentially "people aren't good enough to handle this responsibility" which is fine! Just don't make it seem like guns are evil or bad, just say people aren't good.
Trump's NATO stance is certainly something odd. I think it looks like he is really quite insistent on pushing his "pay up or we won't deal" line. Mattis' attempt at moderating his statement seems to have failed to satisfy the Trump man.
On June 06 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote: Legal, you need to stop your shitposting for a while and try and establish some credibility as an intelligent human being if you want to be this sarcastic all the time. Right now when you sarcastically say dumb things people read them and go "yeah, I can see LegalLord seriously having that opinion" and then respond as if you meant it. People just aren't getting your constant sarcasm.
I suppose "those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones" is a good way to address this. You of all people shouldn't be talking about establishing baseline credibility and shitposting.
I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm just pointing out that you keep making sarcastic posts and people keep responding seriously and then you have to make posts like this
On June 04 2017 11:25 LegalLord wrote: It also helps to be less Romanian considering that was a pretty easy one.
People just aren't getting your sarcasm. It might be time to stop being so sarcastic all the time.
On June 05 2017 04:03 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: also can Dems please find other people to go on the news shows to talk about the climate? Would be much better if Bob Casey was on talking about jobs in renewable energy in regards to Pennsylvania than who the people they're currently sending. (although he's probably at church on Sunday mornings.)
Personally I would prefer it if the Democrats continued to talk about Trump's Russia ties. We have to focus on the threat he represents to our nation as an agent of another nation that is hostile to us.
and
On June 04 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote: You know, since Trump took office we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil. We must be doing something right.
On June 06 2017 01:31 KwarK wrote: I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm just pointing out that you keep making sarcastic posts and people keep responding seriously and then you have to make posts like this
If one guy doesn't get your jokes from time to time, that guy is at fault. If most people don't get your jokes most of the time, your jokes probably suck.
On June 06 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056 It's baffling to me that Trump was tweeting about the London attacks, in which three attackers managed to kill seven people using a van and knives, to bitch about how gun control doesn't help. I can't decide whether I'm more offended by the tactlessness of it or the stupidity. Gun control fucking worked in this instance. They didn't have guns, the police did, just minutes after they started their attack the police showed up and gunned them down.
It's baffling the stupidity on display. If the attackers had guns, you'd bet your ass more than 7 people would have been killed. Every time a gun debate comes up someone mentions "well people can still kill without guns", and every time they need to be reminded of the obvious: guns make killing so much easier. We should be grateful that they were shut down so quickly, and that they weren't able to inflict more damage.
Well if they had guns and so did everyone else, the other people would have used their guns to stop the suspects within seconds. Self-policing.
Three people on a bridge wouldn't last eight minutes against an armed populace.
It takes a special type of rightwinger politicians to make a terrorist attack four days before an election more likely to favor the left than the right ^o^
I mean maybe I'm wrong but I'm getting the vibe that people don't really trust May on terrorism in the first place, especially with the cuts on police, and surely her positive treatment of Trump won't help her when he tweets shit like this.
EPT
