Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Donald Trump, US President #47, US President #45, convicted felon, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable of rape, convicted for financial fraud, guilty of hiding hush money payments to porn actress in attempt to influence 2016 elections
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 609 | 610 | 611 | 612 | 613 | 614 | 615 | 616 | 617 | 618 | 619 | ... | 2481
Rikkitic
Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

  #2019383 20-May-2018 15:50
Send private message quote this post

Sideface:

 

 

 

Just for the fun of it, I looked up this simplified list of the 10 Commandments. On the basis of Trump’s past and present behaviour, and his publicly known actions and statements, I think it can probably be safely concluded that he has certainly broken the last four, but probably not the sixth. In fairness, I don’t know of proof that he has actually violated the first five either but I would be very surprised if he hasn’t.

 


1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

 

 

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

gzt

gzt
18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

  #2019384 20-May-2018 15:56
Send private message quote this post

kingdragonfly: I agree gun safes should be required, but it's at best a tiny part of the solution.

Again, how would gun safes be enforced?

Do you think US NRA members are going to allow random inspections of their gun safes by government agents?

The best case scenario is someone takes guns without the owner's knowledge, gets caught before using them, and the police add an additional charge, beyond theft.

The worst cases are too numerous to list, but include curious children blowing others brains out.

The US needs to require gun safes, age limits, enforce frequent training, remove guns from unfit people and felons, and register all guns.

I know none of this will happen within a decade.

Safe storage does not equal gunsafes. I doubt that Massachusetts has any random inspection requirement.

Rikkitic
Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

  #2019386 20-May-2018 16:08
Send private message quote this post

I think you may be missing part of the point here. If there were actual meaningful safe storage laws, gun owners could be prosecuted if their weapons were used in a crime. This would motivate them to self-police in order to avoid the penalties. Inspections would not be necessary once the gun owners realised that they would face big problems if their guns were involved in the murder of others. 

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

kingdragonfly
11993 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12889

Subscriber

  #2019401 20-May-2018 16:34
Send private message quote this post

Unfortunately this won't be the last mass school shooting in the US.

And I doubt school shootings will end when Trump leaves.

There's also related issues of student protest to politicians "thoughts and prayers", but no action.

Lastly there's a lot of discussion around arming teachers.

So I have created a separate thread called "USA school gun incidents / student anti-gun protests / arming teachers"

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=184&topicid=236157

Stan
929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183
Inactive user


  #2019578 21-May-2018 02:44
Send private message quote this post

dwilson:

 

Stan:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Stan:

 

You can disagree with my numbers all you want (they are from Pew and the US government) we can go into the "tourist and student visas" illegal immigration if you want from my research that claim is incorrect.

 

It doesn't matter about there motivation for wanting to enter the country they still have 0 rights to do it (thats why its called illegal immigration) and there are good reasons behind stopping them.

 

 

One argument is about the numbers. Another is about the wall being an answer to anything. It isn't. It is just an expensive prop for the easily deceived.

 

 

Would you say this applies to all world border walls and fences?

 

 

Fences stop casual intrusion only. Determined intruders simply go over, under or through a fence or wall with a minimal level of effort.

 

The Wall is a great idea, to gather the xenophobic thicko vote. Utterly useless for stopping illegal immigration.

 

 

I would like to see the numbers to back up that assertion.

 

Also Obama was for throwing federal funding towards border security so was Bill Clinton and Bush (I can throw you links of them talking about this) are they racist and xenophobic for saying such things too?

 

Having a clearly defined border wall between your sovereign state and another is not xenophobic its the right of any sovereign state, you can attribute malice and racism to Trump for doing this but it weakens your case against Trump because building a border wall is neither of those things imho.

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #2019590 21-May-2018 08:18
Send private message quote this post

Stan:

 

I would like to see the numbers to back up that assertion.

 

Also Obama was for throwing federal funding towards border security so was Bill Clinton and Bush (I can throw you links of them talking about this) are they racist and xenophobic for saying such things too?

 

Having a clearly defined border wall between your sovereign state and another is not xenophobic its the right of any sovereign state, you can attribute malice and racism to Trump for doing this but it weakens your case against Trump because building a border wall is neither of those things imho.

 

 

Most of what North Korea does is within the "rights of any sovereign state".

 

You can attribute malice and racism to Trump - because he's a malicious racist.

 

Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois have high unauthorised immigrant populations.  They don't have a land border with Mexico.

 

You seem to claim (Bill) Clinton and (W?) Bush said racist / xenophobic things - I think that's BS.  Even if it was true, it's using "whataboutism" to validate Trump's racist behaviour.  FWIW, unlike either, unauthorized immigration fell during Obama's terms as POTUS.

 

The unauthorised immigrant population in the US had been falling since 2007.

 

The % of unauthorised immigrants who are Mexican has fallen.

 

66% of adult unauthorised immigrants have been resident in the US for more than 10 years.

 

Thanks for the fake news laughs.  

 

 

Stan
929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183
Inactive user


  #2019597 21-May-2018 08:42
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

I would like to see the numbers to back up that assertion.

 

Also Obama was for throwing federal funding towards border security so was Bill Clinton and Bush (I can throw you links of them talking about this) are they racist and xenophobic for saying such things too?

 

Having a clearly defined border wall between your sovereign state and another is not xenophobic its the right of any sovereign state, you can attribute malice and racism to Trump for doing this but it weakens your case against Trump because building a border wall is neither of those things imho.

 

 

Most of what North Korea does is within the "rights of any sovereign state".

 

You can attribute malice and racism to Trump - because he's a malicious racist.

 

Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois have high unauthorised immigrant populations.  They don't have a land border with Mexico.

 

You seem to claim (Bill) Clinton and (W?) Bush said racist / xenophobic things - I think that's BS.  Even if it was true, it's using "whataboutism" to validate Trump's racist behaviour.  FWIW, unlike either, unauthorized immigration fell during Obama's terms as POTUS.

 

The unauthorised immigrant population in the US had been falling since 2007.

 

The % of unauthorised immigrants who are Mexican has fallen.

 

66% of adult unauthorised immigrants have been resident in the US for more than 10 years.

 

Thanks for the fake news laughs.  

 

 

 

 

"Also Obama was for throwing federal funding towards border security so was Bill Clinton and Bush (I can throw you links of them talking about this) are they racist and xenophobic for saying such things too?"

 

So if I understand your reply to this correctly you consider border security to be racist? I do find it hard to debate that point because I struggle to understand how you got to that conclusion if you could expand on it more perhaps we can have a conversation.

 

As far as your North Korea point that's an extremely poor moral equivalence.

 

Perhaps they have been falling but 500,000 illegal immigrants still enter the USA per year Bush, Obama and Clinton also said this was a problem Obama actually increased border security during his administration and to me Trump is taking that one step further by building a wall I honestly can't follow your logic Obama increased border security and that's okay because that was just enough and Trump wanting to do it further is racist because it is too far?

 

Help me out here fred99 im really not understanding you.

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #2019604 21-May-2018 09:03
Send private message quote this post

Stan:

 

 

 

"Also Obama was for throwing federal funding towards border security so was Bill Clinton and Bush (I can throw you links of them talking about this) are they racist and xenophobic for saying such things too?"

 

So if I understand your reply to this correctly you consider border security to be racist? I do find it hard to debate that point because I struggle to understand how you got to that conclusion if you could expand on it more perhaps we can have a conversation.

 

 

No - border security isn't inherently racist but is by definition xenophobic, as it assumes that there's a threat from foreigners justifying fear.  Many libertarians have an ideological goal of fully open borders. 

 

Trump is a racist.  Here's a list:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

 

I can't see much point in continuing any discussion with you - when you post things like you have above.

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #2019611 21-May-2018 09:17
Send private message quote this post

Stan:

 

As far as your North Korea point that's an extremely poor moral equivalence.

 

 

That's got nothing to do with "moral equivalence".

 

You were justifying Trump's border wall by stating:

 

Stan:

 

Having a clearly defined border wall between your sovereign state and another is not xenophobic its the right of any sovereign state

 

 

I disagree - having a clearly defined border wall is xenophobic - and as I pointed out to you - but seems to have whooshed right by - all kinds of other morally repugnant behaviours are within the "rights" of sovereign states.  

Stan
929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183
Inactive user


  #2019614 21-May-2018 09:22
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

 

 

"Also Obama was for throwing federal funding towards border security so was Bill Clinton and Bush (I can throw you links of them talking about this) are they racist and xenophobic for saying such things too?"

 

So if I understand your reply to this correctly you consider border security to be racist? I do find it hard to debate that point because I struggle to understand how you got to that conclusion if you could expand on it more perhaps we can have a conversation.

 

 

No - border security isn't inherently racist but is by definition xenophobic, as it assumes that there's a threat from foreigners justifying fear.  Many libertarians have an ideological goal of fully open borders. 

 

Trump is a racist.  Here's a list:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

 

I can't see much point in continuing any discussion with you - when you post things like you have above.

 

 

Depends on the form of libertarianism some froms would agree with that but many also wouldn't 

 

That list really has some silly examples on it (being a NYT opinion list) I googled it before you posted because I assumed you would respond with the first article you came across I can go through them one by one if you want.

 

But following your logic I guess Obama was also xenophobic you must hate Japan's immigration policies.

 

Also border security is not just about the threat from foreigners thats vastly over simplifying, it goes way way deeper than that. My perceptive is this as a government you have a duty to protect and serve your citizens first and uncontrolled immigration can undermine your citizens in so far as democracy, public services, culture and national identity I don't think its xenophobic to say that. 

MikeB4
MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified
Trusted
Subscriber

  #2019621 21-May-2018 09:45
Send private message quote this post

Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia  for a very long time. However their protection and care is only provided for certain groups.




Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #2019624 21-May-2018 09:53
Send private message quote this post

Stan:

 

That list really has some silly examples on it (being a NYT opinion list) I googled it before you posted because I assumed you would respond with the first article you came across I can go through them one by one if you want.

 

 

If you think you have valid, sourced arguments to counter the very good evidence that Trump is a racist, rather than continue the argument here, then go and "fight the good fight" on Wikipedia here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

 

 

Stan
929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183
Inactive user


  #2019625 21-May-2018 09:53
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

Serving and protecting citizens has been used by bigots to justify their racism and xenophobia  for a very long time. However their protection and care is only provided for certain groups.

 

 

Is that not circular reasoning?

Stan
929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183
Inactive user


  #2019630 21-May-2018 09:58
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

That list really has some silly examples on it (being a NYT opinion list) I googled it before you posted because I assumed you would respond with the first article you came across I can go through them one by one if you want.

 

 

If you think you have valid, sourced arguments to counter the very good evidence that Trump is a racist, rather than continue the argument here, then go and "fight the good fight" on Wikipedia here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

 

 

 

 

That's not really my point or intention.

Fred99
13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018


  #2019634 21-May-2018 10:04
Send private message quote this post

Stan:

 

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

That list really has some silly examples on it (being a NYT opinion list) I googled it before you posted because I assumed you would respond with the first article you came across I can go through them one by one if you want.

 

 

If you think you have valid, sourced arguments to counter the very good evidence that Trump is a racist, rather than continue the argument here, then go and "fight the good fight" on Wikipedia here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

 

 

 

 

That's not really my point or intention.

 

 

Come on - surprise me.

 

What's your point or intention?  To deny Trump is a racist?

1 | ... | 609 | 610 | 611 | 612 | 613 | 614 | 615 | 616 | 617 | 618 | 619 | ... | 2481
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Updates »

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.


RSS feeds
Main feed
Forums feed
Copyright
©2002-2026 Geekzone®
Site features
Geekzone BI dashboard
Geekzone Badges
Geekzone Status Page

 

Site Information
Subscribe to Geekzone
Privacy Statement
Forum Usage Guidelines (FUG)
Advertising
Trademark and copyright