"If something happens ... "

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Feb 6, 2017.

  1. citizenzen, Feb 6, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2017

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    Presidents used to say, "the buck stops here." But trump is bringing a fresh, new style to the White House, one where he doesn't accept responsibility, but instead points the finger of blame at citizens just trying to do their job. Trump has once again demonstrated that he is unfit for office and a national embarrassment. Never in my life has a president displayed that degree of cowardice and selfishness. You disgust me donald trump, my "so-called president."
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  3. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #3
    Yep, and those tweets are the kind of stuff regular GOP leadership like McConnell doesn't go for.
     
  4. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #4
    I don't know - Mitch is a first-rate hypocrite.
     
  5. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #5
    I agree that if someone comes over under that judges now opened door, that he would own it.
     
  6. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #6
    You know what? Nobody seems to have asked the public in a systematic way of whether or not we are willing to take the risk of a terrorist incident, which is vanishingly small, from admitting refugees and other immigrants (after 9/11 most attacks have occurred from the West's own citizens and legal residents). I, for one, am willing to take that risk. I just wish the President and other members of the US government would stop flapping around in panic like chickens with their heads cut off. Already we have severely curtailed privacy rights and allowed the establishment of a surveillance state, and now we risk losing the moral high ground with refugees and immigrants. All for the near-zero risk of terrorism.

    We ask soldiers to take risks in the 'war on terror' – why not civilians, particularly when the risk is so low?
     
  7. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #7
    Even if the ban were in place and an attack happened, Trump would still find a reason to blame others for it.
     
  8. Arran macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #8
    America's first deadbeat president: He wants the fun stuff, but doesn't want to work for it.
     
  9. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    Without going into the merits of the statistical impact of terrorism, the military is trained and willingly accepts the risk. Nothing is asked from them, except what they signed for.
    Civlians... well, they're at Starbucks minding their own business, and regularly they don't expect the place to blow up because someone is pissed off at the US.
     
  10. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #10
    Why should there be a difference between civilians and soldiers? Are soldiers' lives worth less than civilians?

    I bet most civilians do not expect to see mass-casualty traffic accidents, but they happen (I have witnessed two in the US), and we do not ban driving. There are mass-casualty shootings that have nothing to do with terrorism or refugees or immigrants, yet we ask civilians to take the risk because of Constitutional gun rights. I am not meaning to start a debate about gun rights here, this is just an example that we do ask civilians to take risks, and they do so willingly every day. Alcohol and nicotine kill many more people than terrorism (indeed the world-wide rate of death from these two drugs is approaching rate of death in WWII), but we do not ban drinking and smoking. One way of defining rationality is to establish that responses to risks are proportionate, such that the largest risks evoke the strongest measures to mitigate them. I fear we're acting wholly irrationally, based on the fear that both the terrorists and the right-wing have been whipping up. Terrorists and the Right make good partners in this regard.

    Finally, Trump's actions are likely to increase the risk of terrorism, both to civilian and soldiers.
     
  11. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    Soldier: fully accept the risks of being killed by a willing individual, also knows that accidents might happen.
    Civilian: does not accept the risks of being killed by a willing individual, also knows that accidents might happen.

    I mean, if you don't see the difference I don't know what to say. It's not being worth more or less, it's about freely accepting and knowing the risks. If you accept a job in Mosul you know very well where you're going, and you wouldn't expect the same risks in San Francisco.
     
  12. Arran macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #12
    Trump's next trick will be an executive order to have all US citizens chipped in order to prevent an imminent crime wave. Listening devices will be placed in everyone's homes too. Surveillance cameras as well. I mean, why not? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?

    That EO would be immediately overturned by a bunch of "so-called" judges and from that point on, Trump could deny all responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens on his watch.

    Trump only knows how to play the system. He doesn't get it that he IS the system now.
     
  13. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #13
    Trump is still learning that being President is not the same as being CEO. And that there's something called a Constitution and checks/balances.
     
  14. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #14
    McConnell is pretty cynical, but I wouldn't call him a hypocrite when it comes to remarking on the public behavior of our highest elected official when that behavior has been disgraceful on multiple fronts. The campaign for office is over and Trump won, but it seems clear now that Mr. Trump cannot or will not become the "different person" in office that he claimed would be the case.

    This president acts like a guy down the end of the bar half the time, flying off the handle and saying whatever comes to mind, disrespecting not only "convention" but the glue that holds us together, our Constitution. He's a national embarrassment over singling out judges for tweeted tongue lashings because he doesn't like their rulings --or their ethnicity!-- and condemning any media coverage that doesn't conform itself to what he wants to read in the papers. And,,,, for lying nonstop as a way of deflecting unwanted but verifiable observations.

    Further, if one wants to get into the nitty gritty of how the USA has acted towards other countries in its perceived own interests over its history, I and apparently Mr. McConnell woud expect that assessment to come from historians, not from casual remarks on television made by a new President who's already insulted his own intelligence services and generals and now casts them as having amongst them "killers" who "are not innocent".

    And whatever was the intent of the way the "pause for review" of immigration vetting procedures may have been, distractive or just incompetent, the result brought a chaotic image of the USA's grip on government to anyone anywhere who had a television or a smartphone in hand. Was that the point? Or is McConnell's point that this is not how a Republican president operates.

    Public announcement of daylight between Trump and the GOP leadership at this point in his presidency is an exasperated warning sign to Mr. Trump. It's not hypocritical, it's a straight-up memo, on optics and on substance as well.

    More to Mitch McConnell's point, Trump's loose cannon act is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. That doesn't make McConnell a hypocrite in my book. He's the Senate Majority Leader of the party that underwrote the ascension of this presidency. And he's not thrilled with some of the publicity that Trump is bringing home under the nominal banner of the GOP.

    I'll grant you it's hypocritical of the GOP to be willing to use the power of Trump's pen for their own legislative purposes even if they dislike some of his (hazy anyway) policy ideas. That's regular politics.

    McConnell's very public criticism of assorted Trump behaviors as a new president is extremely unusual, however, and for my money completely sincere. The GOP helped Trump get where he is, and there were agreements made about platforms and goals. It may have been foolish to expect this man to be willing or able to hold up his end of the bargain, or even to behave with a modicum of decorum, but McConnell seems determined to highlight for the world what is Trump as distinct from what is Republican where there seems too much daylight between the two.
     
  15. citizenzen, Feb 7, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2017

    citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    We could ask the people, but I'm afraid we'd find a good number of them reflecting the values of trump, willing to throw away liberty or adopt authoritarian measures in the hope avoiding attack.

    Terrorism has always existed. Sources of it may change, methods may differ, but it's always been around. It cannot be wiped out because it grows out of dismay and disenfranchisement of the people. So long as people feel their values are threatened, some will seek change or retribution through violence. That will not change regardless of how much the government tries to prevent it.

    The risk of terrorism is unavoidable. The only thing we can do is endure it, and understand that it's a measure taken by a small percentage of desperate people. Society is bigger, stronger and can withstand the attacks and persevere through them. But when we give into fear and the folly of thinking we can do away with the problem altogether, that's when we change society to our detriment.
     
  16. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    The justices have one job: they presides over case brought before them, listen to the attorneys arguments, weigh the evidence, consider precedence and the law, and on the basis of all that decide whether a matter is constitutional or not. They didn't choose to go after trump, the case was brought before them. they aren't supposed to kowtow to the president's desires. They aren't subservient to him. The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, and their rulings hold as much weight as any order by the president. It's the justices' duty to uphold the Constitution regardless of who stands before them in court. So to blame them for doing their duty is shocking enough. But to then blame them for terrorist attacks is sickeningly irrational, contemptuous, and beneath the dignity of anyone wishing to call themselves President of the United States.

    If a terrorist act occurred, trump would cast blame upon these judges, potentially damaging their reputations, and putting their safety at risk. And for what? The terrorists could have already been in the U.S. before the ban, or they could have entered the country in any number of ways which would render the ban meaningless. But none of that would matter because trump wouldn't care—he'd just find any way he could to point the finger at someone other than himself. But that's the kind of man trump is, a coward who would seek to blame anybody but himself. And we just elected that to lead this country. Disgusting.
     
  17. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #17
    and I thought Obama was the first :).
     
  18. samcraig, Feb 7, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2017

    samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #18
    Not so sure. Trump has been doing a great job at angering many internationally. If something were to happen - the blame could easily still befall upon him. Also - instituting an EO that is rolled out in a Constitutional manner, puts the blame on the executor.

    Hypothetical.

    A murderer is on trial and the prosecutor makes a huge mistake which is exploited by the defense attorney. The verdict goes against the prosecutor. Do you blame the prosecutor or the defense attorney?
     
  19. MaulRx Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    #19
    Which branch did you serve in?
     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    No branch - and I couldn't even if I wanted due to medical condition. I was rejected by the Italian Army.
    What's your point, I hope it's not "you didn't serve so you can't have an opinion"?
     
  21. MaulRx Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    #21
    There you go putting words into my mouth. If you had served you would know the fallacy in that statement.
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    how many refugees have the liberals taken into THEIR homes?
     
  23. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    Explain, please (didn't put words into your mouth, I said that I hoped that was NOT your argument).
     
  24. MaulRx Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    #24
    Oh give me a break. Semantics like that are the oldest trick in the book to try and redirect a debate. You can't unring a bell.

    And I fail to see where an explanation is required. Those who have served know that said service frequently beyond "what you signed up for"

    Do you reside here in America?
     
  25. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    the common sense branch, his post is spot on.
     

Share This Page