What's new
By:
Filters

El Paso Shooting

fishonjazz said:
Difference being that the Clinton's don't literally talk and tweet about murder and underage sex. That stuff is all fabricated by others.
Trump on the other hand......

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump is a white supremacist or supporter of white supremacists ideology?

I think he's definitely racist (doesn't think he is) but I don't think he's a supporter of white supremacists. I mean, I don't know the guy so I may be naive, but I really do think he condemns white supremacists.
 
Archie Moses said:
Do you think Trump is a white supremacist or supporter of white supremacists ideology?

I think he's definitely racist (doesn't think he is) but I don't think he's a supporter of white supremacists. I mean, I don't know the guy so I may be naive, but I really do think he condemns white supremacists.
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on your bar for what makes someone a white supremacist. As for me I'm not sure there's any daylight between someone as racist as Trump and what I would consider a "White Supremacist."
 
Zombie said:
Depends on what you mean by gun control. Some states don't have universal background checks or registration, those are easy enough to rectify, requiring only political will.

More strict gun control like banning sales of all/certain guns, along with a buyback program for existing guns is probably never going to happen.

I think there should be much stricter licensing requirements to own guns, passing a mental eval, training, and liability insurance. It's wild that we have stricter vehicle control than gun control. It's stupid, and could be fixed immediately if we had the political desire to do so.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there's no Constitutional right to drive a vehicle but there is to own firearms, so your analogy only goes so far. That said, I disagree with those who argue that reasonable, prudential laws regulating gun ownership violate the 2d Amendment. For example, waiting periods, universal background checks, banning sale of certain firearms, etc. are at most a minor, temporary imposition, and all those who want firearms for hunting or personal protection will still be able to get them. And, no, it's NOT setting us on a slippery slope to ban firearms ownership, so please, just don't.
 
Kyoto said:
I agree with all of that, but it doesn't solve the problem of someone finding a way to kill a lot of people of they want to.

Sent from my SM-G965U using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

A common fallacy used to critique public policies is the "magic bullet" fallacy, which argues that any policy that doesn't fully solve a problem is not worth pursuing. NO policy solves any public policy problem all by itself. Problems are solved incrementally, here some, there some, etc. The relevant question is what incremental benefit does the policy achieve relative to its costs (monetary and otherwise)?

For example, the relevant question is not "Do universal background checks eliminate gun violence" but "How many lives of how much damage/suffering might a universal background check save or avoid compared to its cost of making prospective gun owners wait a few more days to buy their guns (plus other costs related to administrative burden, etc.)?"
 
Last edited:
jimmy eat jazz said:
To be fair, there's no Constitutional right to drive a vehicle but there is to own firearms, so your analogy only goes so far. That said, I disagree with those who argue that reasonable, prudential laws regulating gun ownership violate the 2d Amendment. For example, waiting periods, universal background checks, banning sale of certain firearms, etc. are at most a minor, temporary imposition, and all those who want firearms for hunting or personal protection will still be able to get them. And, no, it's NOT setting us on a slippery slope to ban firearms ownership, so please, just don't.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's fair enough, and interpretations of the second amendment vary, it's a relatively recent development in SC judgments that the second amendment guarantees a personal right to gun ownership.
 
Zombie said:
Yeah that's fair enough, and interpretations of the second amendment vary, it's a relatively recent development in SC judgments that the second amendment guarantees a personal right to gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Yep, plus there are guns and there are GUNS. SC rulings don't necessarily imply that one can own military assault rifles with high capacity magazines. SC may one day rule that's the case (wouldn't surprise me).

The gun culture/cult in this country has long ago strayed way beyond what might be considered rational/reasonable.
 
Archie Moses said:
Not specifically but I think his tweets condemned everything that's bad. He's also specifically condemned white supremacists in a speech.

I'm not Trump guy. I do think he's an ignorant racist (he's does racist things and says racist things but just doesn't understand why they're racist) but I certainly don't think he's a white supremacist or condones white supremacists. Too tin foily for me. It's like the Republicans saying the Clintons are murderers and have underage sex rings going on.
Click to expand...
What a bad comparison? The fact that Trump stokes the fire of racism is actually true while the Clintons murdering people or pizzagate is some false right wing conspiracies. He condone the people in Virginia with there are good people on both sides comment.
 
Archie Moses said:
Do you think Trump is a white supremacist or supporter of white supremacists ideology?

I think he's definitely racist (doesn't think he is) but I don't think he's a supporter of white supremacists. I mean, I don't know the guy so I may be naive, but I really do think he condemns white supremacists.
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump would ever admit to being a white supremacist. Not a good business plan.
 
Spaniard said:
Hadn't heard this theory, what are some examples?
Click to expand...
Come good recent examples include him referring to immigrants as "invaders," using words like "infested" when attacking political adversaries who are POC, and telling others to "go back where they came from."

You don't just have to take our word for it either. Avowed white supremacists and alt-right figures are receiving his message, and they approve. Andrew Anglin, the editor for the NeoNazi website Daily Stormer had this to say about Trump's remarks about the so called "squad".

“Telling those women to go back to their countries is by far the most racist thing he’s ever said – especially since one of them was a black American, descended from slaves. And by refusing to apologize, he has effectively normalized the opinion among the masses of goyim that you can believe that America is a white country, for white people – and that brown people are our guests and if they don’t like being guests then they have to go home.”

And this-

“Man, President Trump’s Twitter account has been pure fire lately. This might be the funniest thing he’s ever tweeted. This is the kind of WHITE NATIONALISM we elected him for. And we’re obviously seeing it only because there’s another election coming up. But I’ll tell you, even knowing that, it still feels so good.”

And this-

“So this is not some half-assed anti-immigrant white nationalism. Trump is literally telling American blacks to go back to Africa.”
 
Last edited:
Archie Moses said:
Do you think Trump is a white supremacist or supporter of white supremacists ideology?

I think he's definitely racist (doesn't think he is) but I don't think he's a supporter of white supremacists. I mean, I don't know the guy so I may be naive, but I really do think he condemns white supremacists.
Click to expand...
Idk but my point was that with him there is at least some smoke. That's the difference

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Hmmm.. I guess I was hoping for something a little more smoking gun that I hadn't heard about, unless there is more that's reported somewhere else. For some reason I was thinking he had more direct involvement with white supremacists in his past and that's why there was so much noise. In the debates there was a lot of talk about how there is no doubt, he's a hard core racist. I got the feeling that it was more that they hoped it was true, they were using the old if you say it enough it will become true, tactic. Which is what losers do.
 
Spaniard said:
Hmmm.. I guess I was hoping for something a little more smoking gun that I hadn't heard about, unless there is more that's reported somewhere else. For some reason I was thinking he had more direct involvement with white supremacists in his past and that's why there was so much noise. In the debates there was a lot of talk about how there is no doubt, he's a hard core racist. I got the feeling that it was more that they hoped it was true, they were using the old if you say it enough it will become true, tactic. Which is what losers do.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you ignored the evidence provided to you because it didn't fit the narrative you'd already constructed. *shrug*

Also, someone doesn't need to pal around with the likes of David Duke or Richard Spencer to pander to white supremacists.
 
fishonjazz said:
Idk but my point was that with him there is at least some smoke. That's the difference

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

And I agree. I think @Zombie made me think about it more when he asked where my bar was set at what white supremacists means. Like I've said before, he's definitely a racist, but I think he doesn't understand or accept it (if that makes sense.)

Whoever posted Obama's statement made me think even more. He makes some great and powerful points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top