05
Jun
17

More on President Trump.


Trump’s response to London terror:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/04/trump-berates-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-terror-attacks
Trump tweeted:

“Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”

Dear Mr Trump – you may not like to recognise the fact – but you regularly lose more Americans per year in the USA through (non-terrorist) mass shootings than the total number of terrorist casualties across the whole of the western world during the last decade.

Advertisements

13 Responses to “More on President Trump.”


  1. June 5, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    US embassy in London directly contradicts Trump’s Twitter attack on London’s mayor

    https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-embassy-london-directly-contradicts-112900870.html

  2. 2 Marleen
    June 5, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    I’ve tried elsewhere to get across that when a white guy comes into a movie theatre in the burbs and kills people (with guns/a gun), we don’t say, “Oh, look out for white people [or white people watching movies].” (As opposed, for example, to when a black, somewhat disturbed, veteran showed up at the very end of a completely peaceful march of Black Lives Matter — along with local officials and police — to disrupt the situation, so sadly.) And we tend not to want to generalize about emotionally disturbed people either. However, it became routine, for a while, that “conservatives” would respond to a major attack of the kind by saying it wasn’t time to talk about guns so soon (or of course ever); and they would put emphasis on mental health.

    Yet, again, when the chance came, Trump (with Republican support) rolled back a rule that had made it more difficult for mentally disturbed or mentally disabled people to get guns. So, they have basically no reason for people not to get guns (except maybe a felony record, although I’m not sure — which they also see as a reason not to be able to vote ever again in one’s life — and, subconsciously, minority individuals).

  3. June 5, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    A recent argument here (from a Trump admiring politician) has been that admitting (Muslim) refugees into the country leads to terrorism. That if we didn’t allow Muslim refugees, we’d have no terror threat (despite the fact that terrorists with refugee links make up the tiniest fraction of the total refugee numbers)

    One TV presenter pointed out that if the terrorists hadn’t been born we’d have no terrorists – so it was equally valid to say birth was a causal factor in terrorism.

    And a prominent Australian politician, noting that terrorists are to all intents and purposes always men – said that it would therefore be equally valid to say that testicles are a cause of terrorism.
    And probably relevant to that last statement, last week I heard part of an interview in which the guest noted that many identified terrorists have a history of domestic violence or other violence against women. She mentioned that the Manchester murderer had previously punched a girl in the face because her dress or appearance offended him.

  4. 4 Marleen
    June 5, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    Thank you for sharing the article about the U.S. ambassador!

  5. 5 Marleen
    June 5, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Yikes.

    … so it was equally valid to say birth was a casual factor…

  6. June 5, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    … so it was equally valid to say birth was a casual factor…

    The man making that statement was trying to point out how ridiculous the refugee claim was, that almost anything could be called upon to be claimed as a common trait of terrorist.

    IN my last comment I mentioned that prior cases of violence against women seemed to be a common trait. And it seems to me that more than a claimed allegiance to Islam, there is a common history of violence. The most notorious Australian members of ISIS have been men who were standover men, violent thugs in Australia before they departed for Iraq/Syria. It seems like association with ISIS gave them the freedom to BE violent, free from legal repercussions.

  7. 7 Marleen
    June 5, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    Okay, the one about testicles is funny. Only because there will be no policy consequence to it. Now, the postulation about domestic violence against women (or even non-domestic disrespect of/violence toward women) is evident statistically in these matters.

    The recent attack by a white supremacist type in Portland (who slashed the throats of three men after they stood up for two young women on a train) was a person who had, the previous day, thrown a plastic bottle at a black woman on a train. The woman then sprayed him with mace.

  8. 8 Marleen
    June 5, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    causal … (Not casual, lol.) Oops.

  9. 9 Marleen
    June 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    Well, that makes sense that certain violent and otherwise delinquent (criminally) men would think they should be free to or have the right to violence in general and against women.

  10. 10 Marleen
    June 6, 2017 at 7:19 am

    Onesimus said: And it seems to me that more than a claimed allegiance to Islam, there is a common history of violence. The most notorious Australian members of ISIS have been men who were standover men, violent thugs in Australia before they departed for Iraq/Syria. It seems like association with ISIS gave them the freedom to BE violent, free from legal repercussions.

  11. June 6, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Statistics Trump needs to heed:
    https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data/2017

    At the time of posting: 212 killed and 528 wounded in “mass shootings” in USA so far in 2017.

  12. 12 Marleen
    June 6, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    Oh, and mental health services are something Republicans want to (and Trump along with’em says he wants to) take out of what is required to be covered when health insurance is offered.


Comments are currently closed.

Blog Stats

  • 77,188 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 236 other followers


%d bloggers like this: