Trump Disgracefully Politicizes NYC Terror Attack

[Captain Adverse]

You're telling me your incarceration budget exceeds your war on terrorism budget? Especially when you take out the cost for non-violent crime?

And ouch on the criticism, I was asking a question and trying to be civil. No need to be douchey, I'm playing nice.

1. I was being factual, not (intentionally) "douchey."

2. You made an assertion, it is up to you to support it, not for me to assume your assertion is true.

3. We do have (and always have had) a large military budget. However, grouping it all together under the heading "war on terror" is a misnomer; as it has always been large due to arms/weapon system/supply purchases, maintenance, wages, training and other normal operating costs.

4. Deduct all of those costs and then specifically identify what portion remaining can rightly be attributed only to a "war on terror," and we can see if there is any real point to discuss.

 

[prometeus]

But Ms Wilson eavesdropping on a phone call from the President to the widow of a dead veteran, to politicize it was ok.
Got it!

So in your opinion it is OK for the President to lower himself into the gutter just because someone else insignificant has done it. Nice low standards.

 

[OlNate]

1. I was being factual, not (intentionally) "douchey."

2. You made an assertion, it is up to you to support it, not for me to assume your assertion is true.

3. We do have (and always have had) a large military budget. However, grouping it all together under the heading "war on terror" is a misnomer; as it has always been large due to arms/weapon system/supply purchases, maintenance, wages, training and other normal operating costs.

4. Deduct all of those costs and then specifically identify what portion remaining can rightly be attributed only to a "war on terror," and we can see if there is any real point to discuss.

Meh, we all get douchey from time to time, intentional or not. I'm crossing the aisle to talk to you about this because I respect your logic, just didn't want you to think that this is some one-sided gotcha setup, I'm actually interested on hearing your opinion.

The best numbers I could find for the percentage of inmates involved in violent crime was a bit old (2012), but it's the best I could do in the time I have, and the number is 47.7%.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

So, you have to consider that less than half of your prison budget is being devoted to violent crime in America. To that we would, of course, need to add actual police budgets (the portion dedicated specifically to violent crime, which eliminates a big chunk devoted to the war on drugs).

If we compare that to the war on crime (again, another old article but from the same year, and forgive the source, ignore the rhetoric, it's Salon, the figures are down towards the bottom), I can only wonder, since I can't find a source, maybe you know of one, since you seem pretty sure, how could it possibly compare:

https://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/the_cost_of_americas_police_state/

Now, if we compare the deaths since 9/11, which I think we need to recognize as a one off at this point, given that nothing has come close to the complexity of that attack in the years since, to the deaths we see as a result of organized crime, doesn't it seem a bit disproportionate to you? Am I missing something?

And, getting back to the original bit that you kind of dismissed as being without substance, I have to wonder again how this is political, in the traditional sense of the word. If you, as a country, choose not to engage in politics with a criminal organization like ISIS, it wouldn't be political. And if it is political, as you assert, can you point to diplomacy efforts that have been made to end the "war" with ISIS? It just doesn't seem to fit the bill.

 

[OlNate]

I'm not talking about comparing casualties, I'm talking about societal impact.

These incidents obviously do have significant impact, as we always have a giant debate over what should be done in response to them. This is what Trump's silly travel ban is influenced by. This is what the terrorists are looking for, to instill fear in the populace. They want us to be scared. My opinion is, that we should just remain unfazed in the wake of these attacks, and to not sacrifice more liberties in the name of security. But that's just me.



I don't like the Patriot Act, either.

Here's the thing, though... Has the societal impact been all the work of the "terrorists"? Or has it been an opportunistic media and government using it to drive public reaction (and compliance) by blowing it out of proportion? To me, the American reaction to ISIS is giving them the win.

 

[TheGoverness]

Here's the thing, though... Has the societal impact been all the work of the "terrorists"? Or has it been an opportunistic media and government using it to drive public reaction (and compliance) by blowing it out of proportion? To me, the American reaction to ISIS is giving them the win.

It's a combination of both. But obviously, the terrorists light the spark.

And ISIS is pretty much falling apart at this point, considering all of their major strongholds in the ME have been seized. But I will agree that we as a country need to be cautious about implementing more security measures, because it comes at the cost of our freedoms.

 

[joG]

I'm not talking about comparing casualties, I'm talking about societal impact.

These incidents obviously do have significant impact, as we always have a giant debate over what should be done in response to them. This is what Trump's silly travel ban is influenced by. This is what the terrorists are looking for, to instill fear in the populace. They want us to be scared. My opinion is, that we should just remain unfazed in the wake of these attacks, and to not sacrifice more liberties in the name of security. But that's just me.



I don't like the Patriot Act, either.

While I agree that we should remain unfazed, I believe we might want to react. One way to do this is by vetting immigrants more thoroughly than we have done. This does not sacrifice the liberties of American citizens very much. But it does help reduce the risk of attacks and thus the impact on American politucs.

 

[joG]

So in your opinion it is OK for the President to lower himself into the gutter just because someone else insignificant has done it. Nice low standards.

Lower himself? By saying what?

 

[Captain Adverse]

....If we compare that to the war on crime (again, another old article but from the same year, and forgive the source, ignore the rhetoric, it's Salon, the figures are down towards the bottom), I can only wonder, since I can't find a source, maybe you know of one, since you seem pretty sure, how could it possibly compare:

https://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/the_cost_of_americas_police_state/

According to this report posted in 2011 by the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

We calculate that a reduction by one-half in the incarceration rate of non-violent offenders would lower correctional expenditures by $16.9 billion per year (Page 1, Executive Summary)....In 2008, federal, state, and local governments spent nearly $75 billion on corrections.(page 10)

http://cepr.net/documents/publications/incarceration-2010-06.pdf

So, if we just forget annual increases, and use that $75 billion as a bottom line figure for every year, and deduct $16.9 billion, we are talking about an expenditure of $58.1 billion per year over the 15 years counting from 01/01/2002 until today. That would be $871.5 billion dollars since 09/11/01 just on incarceration of our violent offenders...not taking into consideration all the money allotted to the FBI, and various state and local police organizations dedicated to violent crime investigation.

So, what has been spent on ONLY the "War on Terror" after deductions for pre-terror military expenses...not in actual combat operations...but only on police and military counter-terrorism in the USA?

Balls in your court.

 

[joG]

Here's the thing, though... Has the societal impact been all the work of the "terrorists"? Or has it been an opportunistic media and government using it to drive public reaction (and compliance) by blowing it out of proportion? To me, the American reaction to ISIS is giving them the win.

Having seen how terrorist attacks have acted on a number of societies, I would have to say that the reactions are always larger than the objective damage justifies. Often they are also misdirected. What this means is that there are buttons one can press to get an approximately calculable result. This was described by various terrorists like Bin Laden or Ulrike Meinhof. So no. It is probably incorrect to believe that the impact is not due to the terrorists. The following scramble by politicians to do as the public demands is puppets dancing for the puppeteer.

 

[joG]

Meh, we all get douchey from time to time, intentional or not. I'm crossing the aisle to talk to you about this because I respect your logic, just didn't want you to think that this is some one-sided gotcha setup, I'm actually interested on hearing your opinion.

The best numbers I could find for the percentage of inmates involved in violent crime was a bit old (2012), but it's the best I could do in the time I have, and the number is 47.7%.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

So, you have to consider that less than half of your prison budget is being devoted to violent crime in America. To that we would, of course, need to add actual police budgets (the portion dedicated specifically to violent crime, which eliminates a big chunk devoted to the war on drugs).

If we compare that to the war on crime (again, another old article but from the same year, and forgive the source, ignore the rhetoric, it's Salon, the figures are down towards the bottom), I can only wonder, since I can't find a source, maybe you know of one, since you seem pretty sure, how could it possibly compare:

https://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/the_cost_of_americas_police_state/

Now, if we compare the deaths since 9/11, which I think we need to recognize as a one off at this point, given that nothing has come close to the complexity of that attack in the years since, to the deaths we see as a result of organized crime, doesn't it seem a bit disproportionate to you? Am I missing something?

And, getting back to the original bit that you kind of dismissed as being without substance, I have to wonder again how this is political, in the traditional sense of the word. If you, as a country, choose not to engage in politics with a criminal organization like ISIS, it wouldn't be political. And if it is political, as you assert, can you point to diplomacy efforts that have been made to end the "war" with ISIS? It just doesn't seem to fit the bill.

Posting salon as a link to sustain an argument is like putting a pipe in your coffee to get more pleasure from the next puff.

 

[Moderate Right]

The bodies aren't even cold yet and Trump is politicizing this. What a disgraceful leader he is.



Trump blames Schumer, immigration policy for Manhattan attack - NY Daily News

Uzbekistan, like Pakistan, is one of our partners in the war against terrorism. There is no rationaltiy to Trump's statement. It's just a disgusting comment that appeals to those who hate Muslim immigrants.

Oh please. Every time there is a mass shooting the left are right on top of politicizing it.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The irony here is that chuck schumer is the king of politicizing terrorist attacks and tragedies.

 

[celticwar17]

False equivalency.

Attacks like the one in Manhattan (and London, Paris, etc.) are political terrorism, organized and directed from a declared enemy of our society. They are designed to punish, and also demonstrate our people are not untouchable.

This is different from either typical crimes (like gun-involved thefts and murders), or mental instability (perhaps the Las Vegas attack...although that is still under investigation).

Well put,
I was trying to formulate why I felt it was different... and you explained it well.

Not that Trump shouldn't have waited.... or whatever...but I do find this situation different, it's actually a part of Trump's job as president to address outside threats to domestic security.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Oh please. Every time there is a mass shooting the left are right on top of politicizing it.

No matter what Trump does you'll defend it claiming they did it first.

But let's look at some facts...

"Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there," Flake tweeted at Trump in response.

The "Gang of Eight" was a bipartisan group of senators who wrote a 2013 immigration reform bill that passed the Senate with support from every Democrat and many Republicans. The bill, however, never made it to President Obama's desk as then-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) didn't bring the bill to a vote in the lower chamber.

Flake backs Schumer on immigration after Trump tweet | TheHill

Is what Flake is saying true?

 

[Moderate Right]

No matter what Trump does you'll defend it claiming they did it first.

But let's look at some facts...






Flake backs Schumer on immigration after Trump tweet | TheHill

Is what Flake is saying true?

I see you totally dodged the fact that every time there is a mass shooting the left pounce on it for political purposes, while you hypocritically blame Trump for pouncing on this terrorist attack for political purposes. Then you say it is all Trump's fault and that there is no fault on the left for politicizing a tragedy.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I see you totally dodged the fact that every time there is a mass shooting the left pounce on it for political purposes, while you hypocritically blame Trump for pouncing on this terrorist attack for political purposes. Then you say it is all Trump's fault and that there is no fault on the left for politicizing a tragedy.

Again, any criticism about Trump is met with you-guys-do-it-too rather than an honest evaluation of the actual behavior. Did the other guys do it too? Only if the situations are identical. Otherwise, you're just creating a different argument.

Trump didn't just tweet that we need immigration reform. Trump tweeted naming and blaming a political rival.

If Obama tweeted or commented, "John Boehner prevented gun control which would have kept these guns out of the killer's hands" the day after a shooting tragedy then you would have a point.

We all agree that politicizing tragedies is wrong. So, why can't we all agree that what Trump did was wrong?

This man came through an immigration lottery program that was proposed by Schumer but had bipartisan support and was signed by H.W. Bush. Does H.W. Bush get some blame? What about all the Republicans who voted for it?

Now the facts. More than 1 million diversity visas were issued over the years. How many terrorists has it produced?

Let's do the math. 1 million = 1,000 x 1,000. So 1% of 1 million is 10,000. If just 1% diversity visas created terrorists we would have 10,000 terrorists from that program alone. That's just math. So how many terrorists came through this program? Let's imagine a grossly inflated number like 100. That would be one-hundredth of one percent or .01% and that's an incredibly inflated number. Were there even 5 terrorists from this program? At what point does this become hysteria? Is a successful program something that brings only .0000001% terrorists?

 

[Moderate Right]

Again, any criticism about Trump is met with you-guys-do-it-too rather than an honest evaluation of the actual behavior. Did the other guys do it too? Only if the situations are identical. Otherwise, you're just creating a different argument.

Trump didn't just tweet that we need immigration reform. Trump tweeted naming and blaming a political rival.

If Obama tweeted or commented, "John Boehner prevented gun control which would have kept these guns out of the killer's hands" the day after a shooting tragedy then you would have a point.

We all agree that politicizing tragedies is wrong. So, why can't we all agree that what Trump did was wrong?

This man came through an immigration lottery program that was proposed by Schumer but had bipartisan support and was signed by H.W. Bush. Does H.W. Bush get some blame? What about all the Republicans who voted for it?

Now the facts. More than 1 million diversity visas were issued over the years. How many terrorists has it produced?

Let's do the math. 1 million = 1,000 x 1,000. So 1% of 1 million is 10,000. If just 1% diversity visas created terrorists we would have 10,000 terrorists from that program alone. That's just math. So how many terrorists came through this program? Let's imagine a grossly inflated number like 100. That would be one-hundredth of one percent or .01% and that's an incredibly inflated number. Were there even 5 terrorists from this program? At what point does this become hysteria? Is a successful program something that brings only .0000001% terrorists?

What is your honest evaluation of the left politicizing every mass shooting?

 

[Desert Storm]

Yeah, its not like Liberals ever politicize mass shootings and right away start preaching about gun-control :roll:

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

What is your honest evaluation of the left politicizing every mass shooting?

I'm on record as saying that Democrats should just drop the gun control issue. I personally agree that guns should be registered and background checks should be done but I think the benefit of such legislation doesn't justify the massive political cost. I think many peopole vote Republican because of guns alone. Moreover, mass shootings are just as rare as terrorist attacks. You're more likely to be struck by lighting than killed by some nut with an AR-15. Considering so many people feel so strongly about their gun rights it makes little sense to create such a rift over this issue given what a small actual impact it does have.

Now to reduce gang gun violence would require an Australia-like gun ban. That will never happen so there's no point. If we want to end gun violence we should just legalize drugs. The black market for narcotics is the source of the violence in places like Chicago.

 

[Floridafan]

I see you totally dodged the fact that every time there is a mass shooting the left pounce on it for political purposes, while you hypocritically blame Trump for pouncing on this terrorist attack for political purposes. Then you say it is all Trump's fault and that there is no fault on the left for politicizing a tragedy.

That is a total unadulterated lie. No one has ever politicized an attack on our country as has trump the divider.

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm on record as saying that Democrats should just drop the gun control issue. I personally agree that guns should be registered and background checks should be done but I think the benefit of such legislation doesn't justify the massive political cost. I think many peopole vote Republican because of guns alone. Moreover, mass shootings are just as rare as terrorist attacks. You're more likely to be struck by lighting than killed by some nut with an AR-15. Considering so many people feel so strongly about their gun rights it makes little sense to create such a rift over this issue given what a small actual impact it does have.

Now to reduce gang gun violence would require an Australia-like gun ban. That will never happen so there's no point. If we want to end gun violence we should just legalize drugs. The black market for narcotics is the source of the violence in places like Chicago.

Wow. A sensible liberal who sees reality. I didn't think there was such a thing. You have literally put me in shock. Before coming to DP I just had no clue how out of touch and extreme most liberals were. I raise my glass to you and hope that we can have some sensible exchanges in the future. I'm not really used to debating liberals with common sense. Here on DP they are few and far between.

 

[Moderate Right]

That is a total unadulterated lie. No one has ever politicized an attack on our country as has trump the divider.

Oh please. We can only look back to Vegas and the left immediately clamoring for gun control legislation, politicizing the tragedy from minute one.

 

[cuban smokes]

The bodies aren't even cold yet and Trump is politicizing this. What a disgraceful leader he is.



Trump blames Schumer, immigration policy for Manhattan attack - NY Daily News

Uzbekistan, like Pakistan, is one of our partners in the war against terrorism. There is no rationaltiy to Trump's statement. It's just a disgusting comment that appeals to those who hate Muslim immigrants.

Trump is NOT a leader; he is a hemorrhoid irritating the anus of humanity ...........

 

[cuban smokes]

Most of Trump haters didn't vote for Bush.

I voted for Bush the first time. Not the second. I was done with the Republican Party and its nonsense.

No one is defending Bush. And Trump is the one doing the attacking. What we are saying is that even Bush knew how to behave like a president in times of tragedy. Your first job is to console and unite the country not to start a political war the day after. I can't believe anyone would defend Trump's disgraceful behavior.

If Americans are attacked the job of our president is to unite us not divide us. It's a job Trump is incapable of handling.

Trump prolly couldn't wipe his own ass; he prolly has to hire *******s to do it for him .............

 

[joG]

The bodies aren't even cold yet and Trump is politicizing this. What a disgraceful leader he is.



Trump blames Schumer, immigration policy for Manhattan attack - NY Daily News

Uzbekistan, like Pakistan, is one of our partners in the war against terrorism. There is no rationaltiy to Trump's statement. It's just a disgusting comment that appeals to those who hate Muslim immigrants.

All that doesn't really upset me much. We knew we should be vetting more.

But it is noteworthy that the head of the Executive should demand the man should be executed. That can be construed to be coercion of the Judiciary. That would really be worrisome.