US Politics

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.

**d-usa**

Gun talk to the gun thread?

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
Gun talk to the gun thread?

TFW the site's sewer's sewer needs a sewer installed.

We need to go deeper.

**Prestor Jon**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.

So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?

It happens in different ways. The US has more spree shootings, China has more spree killing with knives, Europe has more spree killings with trucks, both the US and WI have sporadic bombings. There are unhealthy aspects of society that are common throughout the West and there are unhealthy social conditions that are unique to specific countries like the US. Nobody has a monopoly on mental illness. When unhealthy people choose to lash out they often use the most accessible way which also dovetails into a course of action that will accomplish an additional goal of bringing them a lot of attention.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

I just read an article that a kid in Texas (I think) just stabbed his friend in middle of an argument over whether or not PUBG was better than Fortnite. At this point I'm willing to say Americans are simply more violent by nature. We already have a higher rate of kids and young adults taking prescription meds that affect brain chemistry, and a higher rate of those people taking either the wrong dosage, or mixing meds that shouldn't be mixed. I had a whole lecture I compiled on it, with sources and everything, I'll try to find it when I get home.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Prestor Jon wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.

So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?

It happens in different ways. The US has more spree shootings, China has more spree killing with knives, Europe has more spree killings with trucks, both the US and WI have sporadic bombings. There are unhealthy aspects of society that are common throughout the West and there are unhealthy social conditions that are unique to specific countries like the US. Nobody has a monopoly on mental illness. When unhealthy people choose to lash out they often use the most accessible way which also dovetails into a course of action that will accomplish an additional goal of bringing them a lot of attention.

So why does the US have a much higher murder rate than European countries if these are things that occur everywhere?

**Frazzled**

Why does Europe have higher rape and battery rates?

**d-usa**

Just lock this thread then.

**Kilkrazy**

Because of different reporting standards.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Because of different reporting standards.

Yep. Intentional homicide is much easier to standardize and compare across countries than assault, let alone rape.

**Prestor Jon**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
I just read an article that a kid in Texas (I think) just stabbed his friend in middle of an argument over whether or not PUBG was better than Fortnite. At this point I'm willing to say Americans are simply more violent by nature. We already have a higher rate of kids and young adults taking prescription meds that affect brain chemistry, and a higher rate of those people taking either the wrong dosage, or mixing meds that shouldn't be mixed. I had a whole lecture I compiled on it, with sources and everything, I'll try to find it when I get home.

There’s a big difference right here. The US allow pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise to consumers. This results in people being routinely bombarded with commercials encouraging them to self diagnose their problems and seek a doctor to demand specific medications by name that they may not even need. It’s no wonder that our country is horribly over medicated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.

So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?

It happens in different ways. The US has more spree shootings, China has more spree killing with knives, Europe has more spree killings with trucks, both the US and WI have sporadic bombings. There are unhealthy aspects of society that are common throughout the West and there are unhealthy social conditions that are unique to specific countries like the US. Nobody has a monopoly on mental illness. When unhealthy people choose to lash out they often use the most accessible way which also dovetails into a course of action that will accomplish an additional goal of bringing them a lot of attention.

So why does the US have a much higher murder rate than European countries if these are things that occur everywhere?

Societal and cultural differences and easier access to weapons. Why are affluent suburbs in the US suffering higher rates of depression and suicide? Why does a Canadien decide to murder people with a rental truck?

**Steelmage99**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Because of different reporting standards.

Yep. I predict that somebody is going to have to explain;

1. Why Sweden have such high instances of rape.

2. Why it is fallacious to look at one country and extrapolate to an entire region.

**d-usa**

Is there a politician of note running on a gun-control platform, is there a gun-control bill in Congress, or is there a gun-control bill before SCOTUS right now?

If there is, maybe actually talking about that specifically would actually be on-topic.

Gun control:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756075.page

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
CNN is reporting that Trump paid back Cohen the $130K in hush money.

It's hard to find a way to explain this in a way that doesn't violate campaign finance law.

Yup.

No, all they have to do is file an amended FEC form and pay a fine.

Real embarrassing though...

**d-usa**

Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.

**tneva82**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Interesting theory and while having the means available to commit suicide or murder has to factor in somehow the actual scenario you describe really doesn’t fit the majority of mass shootings. It works with Sandy Hook but doesn’t align with what happened at Columbine, Va Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando or Parkland. I don’t recall enough info about the Vegas shooter’s background to know if he fits that profile. The majority of shooters didn’t grow up in a gun owning household in the US. They decided to commit mass murder and then proceeded to acquire guns since it was the easiest path to achieving their goal. Other attacks that occurred in locales where acquiring guns would have taken more time or been more difficult led to the use of explosives instead at the Boston Marathon and the Times Square car bomb attempt. If someone’s mental health deteriorates to the point that they are determined to kill a bunch of people they’ll be able to find a way to do it because free societies will always be bulnerable to bad actors within its members.

So why doesn't it happen to the same extent in other comparable countries?

Well if you want to deny easy access ang glorifying attitude as reasons there's always simple genetical inferiority as reason. Myself I prefer gun acaess and "woo guns are awzo'" attitude but each to his own

**Vaktathi**

It...it's like Giuliani is intentionally trying to sink Trump...

Goes on national television, says the payment was personal...that this whole thing has only hurt the President, and Melania, personally (and soooo much), but not politically...

Then he dropped "Imagine if that came out of October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton?"

I...don't even have words.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/386035-giuliani-imagine-if-that-came-out-in-the-middle-of-the-last

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.

Yeah... pretty much.

It boils down to, if the current argument sticks (ha!), that Cohen's monthly retainer paid by Trump was used to "pay back" the loan Cohen had to acquire for the Stormy NDA agreement constitutes as a political contribution.

It obviously does as this occurred during the election season (I think after the 'they let you grab their pussy' story). So it need to be reported as a contribution.

That's my read at least...

**Vaktathi**

sebster wrote:

Your mistake is in assuming there is a single factor, not a combination of factors.

Oh absolutely there are a wide array of factors as opposed to any single thing, but we broadly seem to be missing that in the larger sociopolitical conversation, or, when they are addressed, it seems to be as a deflection rather than an attempt to drill down to any real fundamental issues. Fundamentally, the US has always had a wealth of weapons available, but mass attacks, regardless of what kind of weapon being used, be it gun or bomb or truck, appears to be on the rise, while overall violence levels drop and fewer and fewer people die from all sources of violence, including guns. We see fringe elements in society becoming increasingly accepting of violence at a time when more common criminal and interpersonal violence is much lower than in previous decades, the US isnt alone there (even if it is the most affected), and nobody seems to have a great answer on that.

**Da Boss**

I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.

Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.

It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.

Yeah... pretty much.

It boils down to, if the current argument sticks (ha!), that Cohen's monthly retainer paid by Trump was used to "pay back" the loan Cohen had to acquire for the Stormy NDA agreement constitutes as a political contribution.

It obviously does as this occurred during the election season (I think after the 'they let you grab their pussy' story). So it need to be reported as a contribution.

That's my read at least...

Which is almost irrelevant unfortunately. Election law violation s are almost toothless.

**feeder**

Trump now remembers paying Daniels, but still denies affair. He was being shaken down.
Sauce

**d-usa**

So if Hillary just said “oops”, then we never would have had chants of “lock her up” and nobody would still be going “but the emails”.

**Prestor Jon**

Da Boss wrote:
I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.

Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.

It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.

It was already obviously completely hollow back in the 90s. Newt Gingrich trying to claim the moral high ground about an extra marital affair? That was hypocritical and absurd while it was happening.

**Disciple of Fate**

d-usa wrote:
So if Hillary just said “oops”, then we never would have had chants of “lock her up” and nobody would still be going “but the emails”.

Hillary is a woman, which makes what she does inexplicably worse than what everyone else does

**AlmightyWalrus**

Da Boss wrote:
I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.

Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.

It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.

Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Break the law, deny that you did the thing that broke the law, then say “oops, let me pay a fine” and people who really care about this kind of thing won’t care.

Yeah... pretty much.

It boils down to, if the current argument sticks (ha!), that Cohen's monthly retainer paid by Trump was used to "pay back" the loan Cohen had to acquire for the Stormy NDA agreement constitutes as a political contribution.

It obviously does as this occurred during the election season (I think after the 'they let you grab their pussy' story). So it need to be reported as a contribution.

That's my read at least...

Which is almost irrelevant unfortunately. Election law violation s are almost toothless.

I think you're right...

It's almost a carbon copy of the John Edward affair... where the DOJ *did* take him to court and lost their asses off...

**Disciple of Fate**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.

Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.

It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.

Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.

While I would love to add something, going into this direction will only result in hostile denial and the inevitable thread lock.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
So if Hillary just said “oops”, then we never would have had chants of “lock her up” and nobody would still be going “but the emails”.

At the beginning? Probably...

**Da Boss**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I vividly remember the whole Clinton-Lewinski ordeal. I remember how the Republicans went after Clinton, the entire climate. At the time I remember being very disappointed with Clinton (And he was popular here due to his engagement with the Peace Process, I'd say he's the most popular American president in Ireland). I thought cheating on his wife was so dishonest, and I thought lying about it was really shady too. I did feel that it probably wasn't worth pursuing the way it was pursued, but I do clearly remember thinking he was a bad person for doing it.

Now, here we have a Republican President who is quite obviously as sleazy if not far sleazier. What do we hear from his party? Nothing. What do we hear from it's supporters? A tired shrug. What do we hear from Trump's supporters? Justifications and bile.

It's just staggering to me that the entire thing is so obviously completely hollow. There's so little moral standing, so little principle, it's absolutely rotten. I'm filled with contempt and disgust.

Agreed. Turns out Clinton's "basket of deplorables" was spot-on.

While I would love to add something, going into this direction will only result in hostile denial and the inevitable thread lock.

I'm not 100% sure on the supporter angle, but I suppose I just expect better of public representatives. I know it's fashionable to be apocalyptically cynical about them, but I think they should be held to a higher standard. As to the supporters, well, sure. There's racists and misogynists of various stripes and levels of intensity, but there's also a lot of them that just disbelieve anything that doesn't fit what they already think and who get their information from utterly cynically biased sources. None of us are immune to that. So I'm angry about people like that, but I don't think politicians throwing language like that around is good in the general case. In specific cases it is more appropriate, but I think it wasn't really respectable to do that in the election. Somewhat similar to Romney's 48% gaffe.

**A Town Called Malus**

feeder wrote:
Trump now remembers paying Daniels, but still denies affair. He was being shaken down.
Sauce

Trump is such a good negotiator (who never settles out of court, remember) that it only cost him $130k to pay for someone to not say something that didn't happen happened.