• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump condemns ‘white supremacy,’ calls for mental health and gun reforms after double mass shooting

Atomic Kid said:
Those are good questions. Mr Trump tends to opt toward simplistic answers to complex issues and this would certainly appear to be the case here as well. Doubt he or GOP have really given it all that much thought really.
Click to expand...

No, but "They are going to fix it". Power to them, if they can. One thing is for certain, proposals such as these have to come from the Right. If the Left had proposed #1 and #5, we'd already be in a Civil War. With the severity and commonness of this gun violence, we may have passed a tipping point with our Constitutional freedoms.
 
3leftsdoo said:
As someone sworn to protect & defend the Constitution, he made some very troubling comments.

And he's persecuting Julian Assange as well.

Very troubling.

:(
Click to expand...

The statements are exactly in-line with the Global Terror Database. The US originally funded the GTD, but that ended in 2018.

Global Terrorism Database

Our contract with the State Department ended in May 2018 and, although we received only positive feedback from the Bureau of Counterterrorism and our 2018 data collection was well underway, we recently learned that we were not awarded a follow-on contract for base data collection.

Global_Terror_Database.webp

There are a lot of dots and colors over the US, in this map. Was this considered uncontstitutional to be funding the organization?
 
jonny5 said:
I expect him to say what he said. Hes a politician with the secret service protecting his entire family from violence, and FU money to boot. And hes a politicians so he thinks in terms of all solutions being govt solutions.

What I would like him to say is honest, that he and govt cant do anything about this. Violence is a societal problem that society has to fix itself. All govt can do is respond and clean up the bodies.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying but his responsibility as an elected leader is to unify the country and offer a calming and reassuring message. What's he supposed to say as a politician? Parents, it's your fault? ;)
 
trixare4kids said:
I get what you are saying but his responsibility as an elected leader is to unify the country and offer a calming and reassuring message. What's he supposed to say as a politician? Parents, it's your fault? ;)
Click to expand...

When can we expect this?
 
Rexedgar said:
When can we expect this?
Click to expand...

You didn't think his speech to the nation after two mass shootings was unifying?
If so, explain why not.

I get that some don't think he should defend himself from the haters, the resistors, the crazed media. the liars who twist his words...but his base loves when he defends himself.
 
Media_Truth said:
The statements are exactly in-line with the Global Terror Database. The US originally funded the GTD, but that ended in 2018.

Global Terrorism Database

Our contract with the State Department ended in May 2018 and, although we received only positive feedback from the Bureau of Counterterrorism and our 2018 data collection was well underway, we recently learned that we were not awarded a follow-on contract for base data collection.

View attachment 67261383

There are a lot of dots and colors over the US, in this map. Was this considered uncontstitutional to be funding the organization?
Click to expand...

I suspect it was making Trump's "very fine people" look bad. This wouldn't be the first time he's defended them.
 
trixare4kids said:
You didn't think his speech to the nation after two mass shootings was unifying?
If so, explain why not.

I get that some don't think he should defend himself from the haters, the resistors, the crazed media. the liars who twist his words...but his base loves when he defends himself.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Trump read some words, as he has done after many incidents when he has faced backlash. He came across about as sincere as a child who is marched by the ear to the neighbor’s house to apologize for chunking a rock through the window.

Video tape and Twitter archives are not friends of this President!
 
trixare4kids said:
You didn't think his speech to the nation after two mass shootings was unifying?
If so, explain why not.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. Because after a decade of leading the racist birther movement, then two years of a primary campaign strategy based on attacking brown skinned people, one mealy mouthed, straight from the teleprompter, speech is meaningless.

Even the people Trump loves should be able to figure it out.
 
Rexedgar said:
No, not at all. Trump read some words, as he has done after many incidents when he has faced backlash. He came across about as sincere as a child who is marched by the ear to the neighbor’s house to apologize for chunking a rock through the window.

Video tape and Twitter archives are not friends of this President!
Click to expand...

Yep. It came straight from the teleprompter, not the heart. Whenever he wanted to defend White Supremacists, he has had no problem going off script.
 
Rexedgar said:
When can we expect this?
Click to expand...

I doubt his base wouldn't stand for it. Trump certainly doesn't think so, or he would have been a lot more forceful in what he said.
 
3leftsdoo said:
1 and 5 are INCREDIBLY dangerous, completely insane, and thoroughly unconstitutional.

That any president supports such grotesque ideas is appalling.
Click to expand...
If you don't plan on shooting anyone, what can you lose?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
Carleen said:
He did not use the word “I” condemn and he really needs to say that if he is to be believed.
Click to expand...

The only way that the Left would believe Trump on this subject would be if he said something like that, "Because I'm such a horrible racist swine, I'm stepping down from the office of President."

That's what the Left wants, and it won't be happy with any lesser offerings.
 
Media_Truth said:
This is the true takeaway of the entire Trump address. You are talking about items #1 and #5 of his address.

1) calls for red-flag laws to allow the seizure of firearms from those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety.

5) calls DOJ to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies and social media companies to develop tools to identify mass shooters before they strike.

I don't have the answer to your question. I can only suppose that it will be a law enforcement agency that will decide whose firearms to seize. And my guess is that it will be at the local level, with Federal support (FBI??). The identity factor is another can of worms. How do you identify threats? You would have to have a database showing who owns guns. Correct?
Click to expand...

Probably.

Maybe we'd have a grotesque boondoggle like the TSA.

The plutocrats are gleeful & drooling over the Constitution-shredding opportunities presented here; they're no doubt praying for one more of these extremely rare incidents to occur as soon as possible...
 
Ouroboros said:
The only way that the Left would believe Trump on this subject would be if he said something like that, "Because I'm such a horrible racist swine, I'm stepping down from the office of President."

That's what the Left wants, and it won't be happy with any lesser offerings.
Click to expand...

Well we know that will never happen so he needs to go down in 2020 and that is looking real good.
 
Hatuey said:
If you don't plan on shooting anyone, what can you lose?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
Click to expand...

An honest wo/man has nothing to hide!

Constitution, schmonstitution.
 
Ouroboros said:
The only way that the Left would believe Trump on this subject would be if he said something like that, "Because I'm such a horrible racist swine, I'm stepping down from the office of President."

That's what the Left wants, and it won't be happy with any lesser offerings.
Click to expand...

I think liberals would prefer that he be dragged kicking and screaming from the White House as he wets himself.

Because he isn't Hillary.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I think liberals would prefer that he be dragged kicking and screaming from the White House as he wets himself.

Because he isn't Hillary.
Click to expand...

I sure would like to see that but not because he isn't Hillary but rather because he is a piece of ****.

Of course I am not a liberal. I am a "real republican."
 
3leftsdoo said:
Probably.

Maybe we'd have a grotesque boondoggle like the TSA.

The plutocrats are gleeful & drooling over the Constitution-shredding opportunities presented here; they're no doubt praying for one more of these extremely rare incidents to occur as soon as possible...
Click to expand...

TSA? Haven't heard anything about this.

No doubt the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments are somewhat under attack, especially in the manner of the people's right to privacy. I don't agree that these are extremely rare incidents. We've averaged almost one a day this year. You have to keep in mind that these are totally unassociated and innocent victims. I believe a National gun database is in order. People license cars, they can certainly license assault-style weapons, and i don't think it's much of an infringement on the rights of lawful gun owners.

I believe the other aspects are more invasive. Removing weapons based on some criteria is quite confrontational. Necessary? I don't know...
 
JustHanging said:
I suspect it was making Trump's "very fine people" look bad. This wouldn't be the first time he's defended them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it does show that they already have a lot of data about terror organizations in the US. And the US has full access to this data, as they originally funded the Global Terror Database. Next step, if Trump and Graham have their way, is to start disarming some of them.
 
jonny5 said:
He is mostly wrong. The things he proposes only uses govt to deal with outlier problems. Typical political response to do something, even if it doesnt really solve anything. Presidential action is not the solution to societal violence.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. These were two of the proposals.

his is the true takeaway of the entire Trump address. You are talking about items #1 and #5 of his address.

1) calls for red-flag laws to allow the seizure of firearms from those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety.

5) calls DOJ to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies and social media companies to develop tools to identify mass shooters before they strike.

Why go through all that trouble and expense for "a few outliers".
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, but it does show that they already have a lot of data about terror organizations in the US. And the US has full access to this data, as they originally funded the Global Terror Database. Next step, if Trump and Graham have their way, is to start disarming some of them.
Click to expand...

If you think that Trump has slightest intention of disarming any of his base I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell to you. Mr Graham, even when he's not donning knee-pads, not withstanding. A former high ranking FBI official relayed that agents are reluctant in bringing forth investigations of white nationalist/supremacists because the President sees such investigations as being an attack on base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom