Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.

This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and here we go!
Mueller raised possibility of presidential subpoena in meeting with Trump’s legal team.

Any wagers that Trump complies?

They will do everything to avoid a personal interview, but in the end declining will only make matters look worse. Trump himself seemed less phased by it in the past than his lawyers.

That's because Trumps lawyers have an accurate understanding of Trumps mental faculties, whereas Trump does not.

In other news the 2015 doctor's letter from Trump was dictated by Trump himself the doctor now says. As has been widely suspected. Probably a similar story behind the Jackson briefing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43970908

Also Kanye has said that slavery for black people was a choice. Really the kind of guy you want supporting even you Trump

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.

This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.

That's besides the point; nothing to do with shooters getting quick & easy national media coverage.

Maybe it wasn't as quick and easy, but look at how people like John Dillinger and Billy the Kid and so on and so forth were glorified. Is the breathless coverage on CNN really different then the dime novels Ned Buntline turned out, or the headlines about the public enemies years later? I think it's accurate to say we've always romanticized crime and gun violence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.

This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.

That's besides the point; nothing to do with shooters getting quick & easy national media coverage.

It isn't though. Going on a spree has always been an effective way to get national media coverage. Nothing has changed in that regard but, if anything, the coverage has changed so as to make fame/infamy through spree shooting less romanticised and much more critical.

People were also just as desiring of fame in the past as well. Be it to be known like Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok in the old west, like John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde or Al Capone in the 20s and 30s, etc.

Spree shooting as a means to acquire fame and people's desire for fame has not really undergone any radical shift.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and here we go!
Mueller raised possibility of presidential subpoena in meeting with Trump’s legal team.

Any wagers that Trump complies?

They will do everything to avoid a personal interview, but in the end declining will only make matters look worse. Trump himself seemed less phased by it in the past than his lawyers.

That's because Trumps lawyers have an accurate understanding of Trumps mental faculties, whereas Trump does not.

I thought that didn't need to be specified

 Ouze wrote:
Maybe it wasn't as quick and easy, but look at how people like John Dillinger and Billy the Kid and so on and so forth were glorified. Is the breathless coverage on CNN really different then the dime novels Ned Buntline turned out, or the headlines about the public enemies years later? I think it's accurate to say we've always romanticized crime and gun violence.

And then consider the portrayals in film of both Billy and Dillinger. The modern spree shooter is never going to have such a romanticised depiction of themselves or their crimes in Hollywood as either of those two have had. The way that the media examines and reacts to that kind of violence has actually shifted against the spree shooter.

There's a very distinct difference between outlaws and spree shooters. Outlaws have our sympathy because they combine the American dream (being rich) with the other American dream- freedom. They take what they want at any cost. I think they would have been as famous if they had avoided violence entirely. If Al Capone had run a smuggling and corruption ring, then he would be viewed as similar to the Dukes of Hazard. we love entrepreneurs, and outlaws- after all, we're a country founded in treason and rebellion.

Spree shooters though, are killing to no purpose. We don't remember their message, or their goals, and no one makes movies about them, except to document their mental instabilities. We fear them, no doubt. But I don't think any spree killers will wander into the halls of legends- the massacres will be remembered, but the shooters won't.

I know it's small consolation for the majority of American members, but as I always say, there's never a dull minute with Trump.

Trump's long time doctor is saying that Trump faked his own medical letter



A long time ago when I was at school,

if you missed a day at school, you had to get a note from your parents explaining your absence.

Naturally, being a schoolkid, you'd bunk off with your friends and fake your own notes.

The teachers were experts at spotting fakes and your parents would react by giving you a swift boot to the rear when they were informed.

To see Trump faking a 'school' note

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We glorify it in ways we didn't use to. Combine with US culture placing value on fame of any sort; dying in infamy is seen as a better outcome than living in obscurity. It's rarely stated explicitly but it isn't hard to see it. Take a gun to a school and fire it you'll make national news, actually hit someone and it's national news for a week, kill a few people and it's a month in the spotlight. Constrast with a culutre that has a different value system, like Japan, where the same type of person kills just themself instead.

This really isn't true. Even way back in the past gun violence was glorified, be it through rose tinted glasses looking back on the wild west or the massive media coverage of Bonnie amd Clyde.

That's besides the point; nothing to do with shooters getting quick & easy national media coverage.

It isn't though. Going on a spree has always been an effective way to get national media coverage. Nothing has changed in that regard but, if anything, the coverage has changed so as to make fame/infamy through spree shooting less romanticised and much more critical.

People were also just as desiring of fame in the past as well. Be it to be known like Billy the Kid, Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok in the old west, like John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde or Al Capone in the 20s and 30s, etc.

Spree shooting as a means to acquire fame and people's desire for fame has not really undergone any radical shift.

It absolutely has. Even if, as you say, the level of response is identical it has still changed because of exposure. But your argument remains besides the point, both because I explained above why negative fame is still relevant and because your 'examples' aren't anything of the sort. Those aren't individuals who went to a school or public location and shot random people.

All you establishment Republicans, brace yourselves because your next savior is back in Politics! That's right! T-Paw (Tim Pawlenty) is running for Governor of Minnesota again!

https://www.twincities.com/2018/04/05/tim-pawlenty-enters-race-for-mn-governor-republican-field/

I am interested to see how he tacks. In the past, he was known for running the Legislature that sabotaged Gov. Ventura's efforts to do.... things. Then he got elected Governor and it was the ususal establishment R stuff. He might do OK in MN since Trump lost the Priamry here to Rubio indicating that the MN R's might be a bit more stable. However, my local R's have sent some pretty strange birds to Congress before such as Representatives M. Bachmann, T. Emmer, and J. Lewis. However, those districts were pretty tightly Gerrymandered. We will see.

T-Paw has tough opposition from the Dems this year with Tim Walz who use to be the 1st District Congressman for MN. He comes from a rural, conservative district that went Trump int he last election, but has managed to fight off R challengers by being a good friend to the local Farmers. He might have the chops to appeal enough to rural voters and not alienate the city folks.

Should be interesting this year.

So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago

Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago

Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.

No matter who he chooses, it will end up being the prestigious firm of Howard, Fine, and Howard....

The Auld Grump

 Vaktathi wrote:
So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago

Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.

There will be no interview. That's about the most stupid move anyone could possibly do. Even Trump would have to see that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So it looks like one of the complications with Trump's legal team setting up a possible interview with Mueller is that much of the material in question seemingly requires a security clearance...but the last lawyer on Trump's team to have a security clearance left two months ago

Apparently they are trying to get Sekulow a clearance, but he does not have one as yet.

There will be no interview. That's about the most stupid move anyone could possibly do. Even Trump would have to see that.

He dictated the most ludicrous, over the top letter of health to his doctor, in textbook Trumpspeak, and thought the whole world wouldn't immediately know. Self awareness is a dump stat for the orange buffoon.

Fair point

So who knows what the real story is with the “raid” by Team Trump on his precious doctor and taking the medical records. But based on my understanding, even though those records are about Trump they don’t belong to Trump. We don’t own our own medical records, they belong to whatever provider and/or organization created them. Did I get this concept messed up in my head?

 d-usa wrote:
So who knows what the real story is with the “raid” by Team Trump on his precious doctor and taking the medical records. But based on my understanding, even though those records are about Trump they don’t belong to Trump. We don’t own our own medical records, they belong to whatever provider and/or organization created them. Did I get this concept messed up in my head?

IIRC HIPAA states a patient has a right to copies of their records, but that's nowhere near saying they have exclusive rights to them or can seize them.

Weird parallels seem to be setting up here - a directed theft by the pres.'s men? That sure never happened in US history right?

The oligarchy is sure becoming emboldened. These next few months and years will be interesting*.

*Hopefully not in the context of the "May you live in interesting times" curse.

One of President Trump's recent series of tweets is completely off the rails.

"So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!" - @realDonaldTrump, 12:47 PM - May 1, 2018

Followed by;

"It would seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened! Witch Hunt!" - @realDonaldTrump, 1:34 PM - May 1, 2018

1. The questions appears to have been leaked from the Trump camp.
2. There was plenty of questions on collusion.
3. You can indeed obstruct an investigation that ends up showing no crime took place, and you would still have committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
4. The investigation was, according to President Donald Trump of a few months ago, entirely based on the (supposedly discredited) Steele Dossier. Remember all the FISA nonsense? Now it appears to have been based on "illegally leaked classified information". Does he refer to the Comey Memos?

President Donald Trump is full of gak.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So who knows what the real story is with the “raid” by Team Trump on his precious doctor and taking the medical records. But based on my understanding, even though those records are about Trump they don’t belong to Trump. We don’t own our own medical records, they belong to whatever provider and/or organization created them. Did I get this concept messed up in my head?

IIRC HIPAA states a patient has a right to copies of their records, but that's nowhere near saying they have exclusive rights to them or can seize them.

Weird parallels seem to be setting up here - a directed theft by the pres.'s men? That sure never happened in US history right?

Well at least we know where the Big Lebowski went. He was Trump's doc...

Trump is all about that narrative. And it's easy to drive the narrative if your side leaks the things that become the talking points you want them to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:


Well at least we know where the Big Lebowski went. He was Trump's doc...

I thought he was treated by the guy from Independence Day...

Well neither could work a copier...

Oops, why is this copier shredding the papers?

Is he going to do it?

Is he?

We're finally going to have a SPACE MARINE branch!!???!?!?!?!

I didn't realize the President can rewrite Title 10 and invent a new branch.

I wonder if we had both a civilian agency that handles space, and a branch of our military that is already sending some mystery space planes around our planet that could handle such a thing...

 whembly wrote:
Is he going to do it?

Is he?

We're finally going to have a SPACE MARINE branch!!???!?!?!?!

If he is as painfully ignorant as his statements and actions indicate, then, yes.

I hate to mention this, but I seem to recall some international treaties expressly forbidding well, THIS.

Yes, but who cares about treaties? They were a bad deal anyway.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to mention this, but I seem to recall some international treaties expressly forbidding well, THIS.

Huh? I thought we couldn't put WMDs in space...