Trump

[dbacksfan 2.0]

St. Ronnie...I love it!  That's great.


And I have mentioned Lifetime Member NRA on numerous occasions.  And I have actually touched on that here before - I guess it could be considered hard right conservative - I am VERY much into what the RWRE  SAYS about gun control - they take their lead from me!  Probably beyond.  Lets encourage law abiding citizens to have guns and learn how to use them properly.  I feel as passionately about shooting sports as some people feel about other sports around here.   That does NOT mean everyone should have guns - we already have reasonable, common-sense laws in place - thousands of them.  That are not effectively nor consistently enforced.  How about showing we can enforce the laws we have before just creating more bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake.  How about addressing actual root causes before trying to impose on the rights of the people?  

And while we are at it, how about if Hillary stops lying about "gun violence".  When you, me, or pretty much everybody hears that phrase it means people killing others with guns.  It is intellectual dishonesty at it's "best" when she spews her BS about it.  She asserts "90 people a day die from gun violence in our country. That's 33,000 people a year."

The CDC publishes statistics on causes of death for all Americans. Here are the figures from their 2013 update:

   21,175 suicide by gun
   11,208 homicide by gun
   505 accidental discharge of firearms
   32,888 total deaths by firearm


How many of the 11,208 true gun violence deaths are caused by illegal drug related activities?  In the top 15 highest murder rate cities, with the largest amount of gang activity?   Most of them.   Root causes - why not address those first??  Drugs.  Mental health.  Those two items likely cover essentially all of the gun related deaths in this country.  (Suicide is a very serious mental health issue.)  Cure them and we would probably be as low as the rest of the world on gun deaths.  Maybe lower - 505 accidental discharges?  About like bathtub falls.  But those are both difficult problems that require actual thought and action.  Where "gun control" is a convenient, mindless sound bite - easily spewed - that gives people a warm fuzzy that "something" can actually be done without the true required investment.

One other data point that gets a lot of attention on a national level - AS IT SHOULD - is domestic violence.  Just over 1,600 women were killed in 2013 by domestic violence.  And while the reporting on it is highly biased as shown by their reporting of it - "the most common weapon used was a gun" - it was actually 53% killed by a firearm.  This is definitely a mental health issue - it takes one sick, pathetic, disgusting, SOB, whether male or female, to commit violence against their partner.  There is no excuse for it ever, and like killing someone drunk driving, I feel it should be a capital offense (another little 'right wing' characteristic of mine...?)


I am also very much that way about the 1st Amendment.  And all the others that mention "the people" in them.  Non-people amendments don't need 'help', they can take care of themselves.  That is "architecture" of the system.   And what takes it back away from the RWRE is things where "the people" are definitely affected, but the RWRE is out to get them on.  Like the Miranda event where police have to tell people they have certain rights or it cannot be used in court.  That is the antithesis of what right wing extremism is all about - even to the point of not just endorsing, but advocating torture.

I am neither extreme right, nor extreme left - I am extreme 90 degrees!!  I am an extreme moderate....!


If you haven't been concerned about your guns being taken, that's great.  No one should have to worry about it.  But that also shows they don't really mean that much to you one way or another.  Do you participate in any shooting sports?   Your interest and participation is certainly not at the level of one of our soccer fans here.  Or any of the various OU nutcases fans around the state!


Like I said before - 170 million gun owners not a problem.  Millions of them with AR styling.  Not a problem.   It is propagandized as a problem because "the light is better over here..."

Heir, I think you have hit upon something that you and I see eye to eye on. Specifically the issue of mental health with relationship to gun violence, and the distortion of the numbers of gun deaths in the US. I am not currently a gun owner, but I have no problem with gun owners, it's their right to own them and I would be willing to say that 99% are not the issue here. I don't think anyone is coming to get peoples guns except for the criminals that steal them for the purpose of committing another crime.

You mention mental health, and that is, and has been an issue in a vast majority of gun deaths going back to the the 1960's, and a lot of that has to do with the closing of mental hospitals and institutions starting in the 60's and then accelerating through to the 80's. Let me be clear on one thing about this, and that is the way patients were treated in these facilities was absolutely horrible, no one deserves the treatment and lack of that they received. For years it was just medicate them and store them, and if they cause problems ignore them and just tie them to their bed.

The thing that gets lost on St. Ronnie is that he and Gov. Brown Sr. and Gov. Moonbeam (Brown Jr.) were instrumental in closing mental facilities in California back in the 60's and 70's, and when there was a rise in crime, the comment from the leaders in California was appalling.

Of all the omens of deinstitutionalization's failure on exhibit in 1970s California, the most frightening were homicides and other episodes of violence committed by mentally ill individuals who were not being treated.

1970: John Frazier, responding to the voice of God, killed a prominent surgeon and his wife, two young sons, and secretary. Frazier's mother and wife had sought unsuccessfully to have him hospitalized.
1972: Herbert Mullin, responding to auditory hallucinations, killed 13 people over 3 months. He had been hospitalized three times but released without further treatment.
1973: Charles Soper killed his wife, three children, and himself 2 weeks after having been discharged from a state hospital.
1973: Edmund Kemper killed his mother and her friend and was charged with killing six others. Eight years earlier, he had killed his grandparents because "he tired of their company," but at age 21 years had been released from the state hospital without further treatment.
1977: Edward Allaway, believing that people were trying to hurt him, killed seven people at Cal State Fullerton. Five years earlier, he had been hospitalized for paranoid schizophrenia but released without further treatment.

Such homicides were widely publicized. Many people perceived the tragedies as being linked to California's efforts to shut its state hospitals and to the new LPS law, which made involuntary treatment virtually impossible. The foreman of the jury that convicted Herbert Mullin of the murders for which he was charged reflected the sentiments of many when he publicly stated:

I hold the state executive and state legislative offices as responsible for these ten lives as I do the defendant himself—none of this need ever have happened....In recent years, mental hospitals all over this state have been closed down in an economy move by the Reagan administration. Where do you think these . . . patients went after their release? . . . The closing of our mental hospitals is, in my opinion, insanity itself.

In response to queries about the homicides, the California Department of Mental Health had its deputy director, Dr. Andrew Robertson, testify before a state legislative inquiry in 1973. His testimony must rank among the all-time least successful attempts by a public official to reassure the public:

It [LPS] has exposed us as a society to some dangerous people; no need to argue about that. People whom we have released have gone out and killed other people, maimed other people, destroyed property; they have done many things of an evil nature without their ability to stop and many of them have immediately thereafter killed themselves. That sounds bad, but let's qualify it. . . . the odds are still in society's favor, even if it doesn't make patients innocent or the guy who is hurt or killed feel any better.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=all

[heironymouspasparagus]

Major gun legislation follows major blood letting over the last 80 years. The 1934 firearms act was a response to organized crime and attendant lawlessness. The 1968 GCA came about due to the Kennedy assasinations, and the Brady act followed the attempted assassination of President Reagan. Some violent act may yet galvanize the nation and bring another round of gun legislation. It's nearly inevitable. I'm wondering how "law abiding gun owners" will react when the public opinion shifts and the law shifts with it.

Organized crime and attendant lawlessness - direct, foreseeable, predictable result of alcohol prohibition.  And the 'massacres' that spurred it were some high visibility gangland murders numbering a few dozen at the outside - even the St. Valentines day massacred only involved 1 outside 'civilian' who wasn't a gang member. 

Just exactly like the government has positioned us today.  Prohibition of substances that many people use and failed attempts to stop it by putting people in prison.  I have posted Chicago's shooting rate - over 2,600 by this month!  Growth of organized crime was one of the  factors influencing the repeal of alcohol prohibition.  Why hasn't growth of organized crime gotten rid of marijuana prohibition?   If one is into conspiracy stuff, ya might thing someone is making money on it who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  And has their hands on a control lever that keeps the situation as it is.  Who has their hands on the DEA drug classification lever?  And keeping these drugs criminalized??



And all these acts that "galvanize"....  One or two or 20 or 50 something shootings.  Affluent white people mostly.  White kids.  Mostly.   Can the contrast be any more stark than the shooting results of just Chicago a little over half way through this  year?   2,600 +.  Poor.  Black. Latino.  Not even talking Detroit, DC, L.A., New Orleans.  When are we gonna admit to the root cause, and then actually do something about it?



I can here the deniers now, "No, that's not how it is....!!"   Yeah, that's exactly how it is.



 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Heir, I think you have hit upon something that you and I see eye to eye on. Specifically the issue of mental health with relationship to gun violence, and the distortion of the numbers of gun deaths in the US. I am not currently a gun owner, but I have no problem with gun owners, it's their right to own them and I would be willing to say that 99% are not the issue here. I don't think anyone is coming to get peoples guns except for the criminals that steal them for the purpose of committing another crime.

You mention mental health, and that is, and has been an issue in a vast majority of gun deaths going back to the the 1960's, and a lot of that has to do with the closing of mental hospitals and institutions starting in the 60's and then accelerating through to the 80's. Let me be clear on one thing about this, and that is the way patients were treated in these facilities was absolutely horrible, no one deserves the treatment and lack of that they received. For years it was just medicate them and store them, and if they cause problems ignore them and just tie them to their bed.

The thing that gets lost on St. Ronnie is that he and Gov. Brown Sr. and Gov. Moonbeam (Brown Jr.) were instrumental in closing mental facilities in California back in the 60's and 70's, and when there was a rise in crime, the comment from the leaders in California was appalling.

Yay!!!!   Hooray for us!!    Common ground is good!!   (There may be hope for you after all....Lol...)


Mental health has always been just one more thing we fail miserably at and I don't see much chance of it getting better anytime soon.  I have literally had it expressed in my office that mental health problems mean they "just weren't strong enough..."      Well, duh!!!   Kinda the definition of the problem - something wrong to start with.  Or can be induced as in PTSD that is afflicting so many of our kids now!  The comment was from a Marine who has never actually been in combat about two guys we were talking about who have seen WAY TOO MUCH combat, and are deeply adversely affected by it.  One Marine, one Special Forces (my nephew).

And many more types of problems that we just don't wanna "see"....


Reagan did essentially the same thing when AIDS started showing up in a big way - he literally delayed research on drugs/treatment for years.  And we all know why that was.   I had 3 good friends who died from that pernicious disease - not that long before effective treatments did come online.  If that delay had not been imposed, there is probably a reasonable chance they would still be around.   The world IS a reduced place because they are no longer here.


 

[erfalf]

heiron, you freak me out sometimes when you talk about 2A. I feel as if I have passed into an alternate universe.

That being said it is quit refreshing to be "with you" instead of against you. You are just so dang prepared for discussions.

And I agree with the concern over the 2nd. Obviously it is incredibly unlikely anything significant happens in the current environment. But that doesn't mean that it never could. There is a reason the 1st and 2nd amendments are right up front. It's because they are both critically important to the freedoms that the rest detail. It would be refreshing to have candidates who are fervent protectors of these two in particular, as they are pretty well received by virtually the entire population. Who is against free speech?



In regards to Trump (the thread subject), I have basically stopped paying attention. The reports of what says are too unbelievable for me to consider that he is really trying to win. I know in a lot of cases something is probably being taken out of context (not all the time, just anything from CNN). But at this point it doesn't matter. He is (was) good buddies with the Clinton's (enough to get invited to wedding I believe). I've just concluded that he must be a plant. Two birds with one stone. On that note, it is easy to cast stones at the "people" supporting Trump. But I would tread lightly. They are not all brain dead morons (all thought some are). Many I would guess are just trying to defend the alternative to Clinton. Fair or not, he is the only person that has even a remote shot at beating Clinton.

[heironymouspasparagus]

heiron, you freak me out sometimes when you talk about 2A. I feel as if I have passed into an alternate universe.

That being said it is quit refreshing to be "with you" instead of against you. You are just so dang prepared for discussions.

Kinda like a 'Twilight Zone' episode...??  If so, then my work is done!

I am sure I will have more to say about your post after I 'digest' it for a while, but I want you to know that I am thrilled to know that I get a reaction!  In your case, freaking out may not be exactly the optimum...but hey, maybe that can change.  The most important part is to get people THIMKING!   Instead of just blindly, blandly, sitting there with their heads in that vast intellectual brownfield where the sun don't shine!!   Get their information from various places instead of just one of these - Fox, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, RTV, BBC - get it from ALL of them!  I mentioned one of the guys I worked with was astounded I listen to Fox - I also told him that I probably listen to them more than he does!  No commercial media does balanced!  PBS/NPR are as close as one can get, and even they let there internal inclinations show through.  Look - or actually listen - to who is News Director on KWGS now, though...John Durkee!  Imagine that...18 years of Faux News and now he is on NPR!!    You won't find that kind of liberal acceptance of alternate belief systems on Faux News.  Or any Murdochian/Koch/Cheney enterprise.

I think he is also a very good news journalist...just my opinion...




Anyone - everyone - catch it?

[heironymouspasparagus]

And while I was in the zone, thinking about KWGS, I went to their site to maybe stream a little NPR, and found this;


http://publicradiotulsa.org/listen-live


I have a version of that radio.  It is brown leather and GE brand, but it is the same in all other respects.  The guy version of it.  Kinda neat.

[swake]

Donald is being revealed as having huge Russian ties.

First off, his campaign manager has been revealed in an Ukrainian anti-corruption probe to have received $11.7 million in off the books funds from former Ukrainian president and Putin puppet Viktor Yanukovych.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Anti-corruption officials there say the payments earmarked for Mr. Manafort, previously unreported, are a focus of their investigation, though they have yet to determine if he actually received the cash. While Mr. Manafort is not a target in the separate inquiry of offshore activities, prosecutors say he must have realized the implications of his financial dealings.

"He understood what was happening in Ukraine," said Vitaliy Kasko, a former senior official with the general prosecutor's office in Kiev. "It would have to be clear to any reasonable person that the Yanukovych clan, when it came to power, was engaged in corruption."

Trump has all his own Russian problems and that's likely why he will never release his tax returns, they are going to show he owes hundreds of millions if not billions to Russian oligarchs linked to and dependent on Putin.

http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-explaining/

Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008 that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets... We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." The Guardian reports there are "several Russian billionaires tied to Trump" and notes Trump's sale of a Palm Beach mansion for $95 million to Russian fertilizer billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, "who was reported in the Panama Papers leaks to have used offshore law firms to hid more than $2bn-worth of artworks, including pieces by Picasso, Van Gogh and Leonardo, from his wife in advance of their divorce."

and

Times reporter Mike McIntire wrote that one of the associates at Bayrock, the development company behind the Trump project, "brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians 'in favor with' President Vladimir V. Putin, according to a lawsuit against Bayrock by one of its former executives." Another lawsuit "was filled with unflattering details of how Bayrock operated, including allegations that it had occasionally received unexplained infusions of cash from accounts in Kazakhstan and Russia.

and worst of all:

"Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major US presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.

"...Even if you draw no adverse conclusions, Trump's financial empire is heavily leveraged and has a deep reliance on capital infusions from oligarchs and other sources of wealth aligned with Putin. That's simply not something that can be waved off or ignored."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ever wondered where you stand on the political scales??   Take the test....while seeing where some of these clowns were in 2012.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

[Hoss]

Ever wondered where you stand on the political scales??   Take the test....while seeing where some of these clowns were in 2012.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Interesting.  I'm a little left of center libertarian.

[dioscorides]

Ever wondered where you stand on the political scales??   Take the test....while seeing where some of these clowns were in 2012.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

I am almost right in the middle of Left / Libertarian:  Economic Left/Right: -5.5, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69.

[Conan71]

Interesting.  I'm a little left of center libertarian.

Just to the right of Gandhi myself.

That said, so much in that poll seemed irrelevant to me in terms of someone's political make up.

[heironymouspasparagus]

On the results page, they showed Stalin and Hitler very close.  It has occurred to me in the past that as one goes further left or right, one ends up at the same place on the far side of rational - a control economy where the govt entity decides what the economy is to do and kills all political life in the country.  This chart reflects what happened with both of those two. - same end result.






Not sure I get why they showed Kinky Friedman on that chart - doesn't seem to be right wing at all - he isn't that kind of political....   (Lol...wait for it...!)

But better than Merle Haggard, I guess...   BUT if you follow this link - don't!!  Fair warning - it's hard core politically incorrect....no, not incorrect, it's just politically wrong!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__tAHR5ErM



Ok, ok,...in the interest of trying to make up for that, I offer this very nice rendition of a classic....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_DKWlrA24k

[cannon_fodder]

This is great:

Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country...

'

Donald Trump said that. DONALD TRUMP SAID THAT.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37086578

Bigotry:

"He's a Mexican..." - Trump explaining why a Federal Judge is unable to do his job.

2 - the number of times the US Government has sued companies controlled by The Donald for not renting to black people (his dad was so bad at this he made it into a Woody Guthrie song).

$200,000 - the fine levied against Trump casinos for bending to the racist whims of Trump's friends & hiding black employees when Trump and Ivana showed up

"I have a great relationship with the blacks"

David Duke. KKK. Neo Nazis.

"I don't know where he was born," - no one has ever seen Trump's "long form" birth certificate...

"I'd ban all Muslims."

"Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, probably some of them are OK."

"Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!"

"they don't look like Indians to me... They don't look like Indians to Indians." - referring to members of the Mashantucket Pequot Nation who he thought was stealing his casino business

"They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate." - defending his supporters who beat up a man they thought was Mexican

"You're not going to support me, because I don't want your money," he said. "You want to control your own politician." - in a speech to "the Jews"

"Look at my African American over there" - Trump when he saw a black guy at his rally

For fun, support for Trump and racist internet searches correlate very well:



Hatred:

Mexicans. Blacks. Muslims. Democrats. Republicans. Handicap people. Women. Babies. The media. China. etc. etc. etc.


The Constitution:

1st Amendment - wants to make it easier to sue people for saying things you don't like. It is a very good possibility that Trump has sued more people for saying things he doesn't like than anyone else. In particular, he wants to limit freedom of the press so if they do things he doesn't like he can win money.

He also wants to ban people from entering the country based on religion, allow the government to search members of a particular group without a warrant, shut down ""the mosques," etc.

2nd Amendment - he was in favor of gun control before he was against it. But he's for The 2nd Amendment now.

4th Amendment - he is favor of a national database of Muslims. When asked if he would go against the Constitution and allow warrantless searches he said "we're going to have to do things that we never did before, and some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule and certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we're going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

5th Amendment - not a big fan of due process or the prohibition on government taking, particularly when he can use eminent domain to have the government take your property for his profit.

6th Amendment - not a huge fan of the rights of the accused. During the debacle that was the New York 5 (5 men accused of rape, thrown under the bus and later exonerated and paid $40mil for getting railroaded) he ran full page ads trying to taint the jury pool before trial. Even after DNA evidence cleared the men, he still says they are guilty and should be back in jail.

8th Amendment - he is favor of torture and beating people on the streets. Both in violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

9th Amendment - he has repeatedly said "that isn't a right. You can't show it to me in the Constitution" when speaking about immigration, about abortion, about privacy, etc. The 9th Amendment specifically says it doesn't have to be written out in the Constitution to be a guaranteed right.

14th Amendment - he wants to abandon birthright citizenship...

16th Amendment - he has stated previously that he wants to kill the 16th Amendment (income tax)

18th Amendment - I assume he's against this one.


Doin' fine there Donald.



(I wrote this last night, I may have been drinking, and stopped doing citations at a certain point... clicked post today. Good job me for waiting until sober me could review before posting!)

[cannon_fodder]

Ever wondered where you stand on the political scales??   Take the test....while seeing where some of these clowns were in 2012.


https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Shockingly middle of the road. In Oklahoma, I feel like a flaming liberal.

That said, I suck at these tests. For example: When you ask me if quick decision making is an advantage of a one party state, the answer is "agree." It absolutely IS an advantage of a one party state, does that mean I agree with it? NO. I suspect my response in that regard alters the result.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is great:
'

Donald Trump said that. DONALD TRUMP SAID THAT.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37086578

Bigotry:

"He's a Mexican..." - Trump explaining why a Federal Judge is unable to do his job.

2 - the number of times the US Government has sued companies controlled by The Donald for not renting to black people (his dad was so bad at this he made it into a Woody Guthrie song).


9th Amendment - he has repeatedly said "that isn't a right. You can't show it to me in the Constitution" when speaking about immigration, about abortion, about privacy, etc. The 9th Amendment specifically says it doesn't have to be written out in the Constitution to be a guaranteed right.


Doin' fine there Donald.


(I wrote this last night, I may have been drinking, and stopped doing citations at a certain point... clicked post today. Good job me for waiting until sober me could review before posting!)

That's a great post - keep on drinking!


Sadly, since he has never read the Constitution, just like so many of his followers when they say, "It's not in the Constitution..."    Well, it doesn't have to be.  The Supreme Law of the Land, as DEFINED by the Constitution, is composed of that document PLUS the laws passed by Congress, mostly incarnate as the CFR, and Treaties ratified by the Senate.   (CF, I know you know this - this is for those with the low, sloping brow syndrome who don't/can't read...)

That lack of understanding by the unwashed RWRE masses is what gave Bush/Cheney/Rove the support they needed to break not just our laws, but international law, and - again, by definition - commit war crimes.  Could crimes against humanity be far behind??   Not only did we tolerate it as a nation, but embraced it...cheered it on...and let it again come to life again in the manifestation of Trump.  Who once again advances the idea of torture and war crimes as just 'business as usual', that we should be committing.

And so many of us really do have the total lack of awareness to seriously ask the question, "Why do they hate us...?"   The 'plaintive bleat' answer is because they are jealous, which of course is a fallacy.  We just keep on keeping on....