• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
I was just about to post a question about the why when I saw your post. I read the article, and I think it is very interesting and on one hand, I agree 100% but on the other hand they are missing some significant differences. One such difference is in regards to hunting. There is a profound difference between hunting and just killing animals to watch them die.

Additionally, why is it that most of the time, these acts are caused by guys? Is there something going on with girls that makes them less likely to commit these horrific acts?
Click to expand...

Toxic masculinity coupled with loneliness. People underestimate the impact isolation has on a person, particularly in their formative years and into the awful hormonal ride that is middle & high school. Many men & boys struggle to process emotion in a productive manner, due at least in part to warped societal beliefs regarding masculinity, "what it means to be a man" and what type of emotional outlets are acceptable. Tack onto that the violence-based culture alluded to in the Taibbi article, and you've got a damn powder keg.

Of course, this could even come down to genetic degradation: http://theconversation.com/the-y-chromosome-is-disappearing-so-what-will-happen-to-men-90125 (somewhat tongue-in-cheek)
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Toxic masculinity coupled with loneliness. People underestimate the impact isolation has on a person, particularly in their formative years and into the awful hormonal ride that is middle & high school. Many men & boys struggle to process emotion in a productive manner, due at least in part to warped societal beliefs regarding masculinity, "what it means to be a man" and what type of emotional outlets are acceptable. Tack onto that the violence-based culture alluded to in the Taibbi article, and you've got a damn powder keg.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. Add in the number of fatherless households, society having polar opposites on their definition of what it is to be a man, and a gross misunderstanding of a man's roll in society, it is no wonder. Too many boys are raised without guidance and while it is nothing against single mothers who do the best they can, they are not genetically equipped to handle it. Same with single father's raising daughters. I also think that too many men are unwilling to act as a father figure to those in need. That is why think bouscouts and church programs are so important.


In a side note, there was quite a discussion at between some people waiting in line to pay a bill regarding if teachers should have the choice to be armed or not. One of them pointed out that it the teachers job is to teach and nothing else. The other pointed out that we need to make sure that there are councilors in every class room, they should remove all fire extinguishers since we can't expect them to be firefighters, that they should double or triple the custodial staff to clean up every time something gets spilled, interior decorators to hang stuff on the walls, and an IT person for every student. Personally, I think they should be given the option, if they are willing to go though additional and extensive training.
 
No armed teachers, staff or administrators in schools.

It's a fictional panacea that really won't, in my opinion, decrease a threat's potential level of harm.

How many burglars enter buildings where the security guard is stationed? Do we have armed roving bands of adults constantly circulating and positioned at every point of a school building?

Think about every teacher/staff/administrator you know/have known. How many of them would you want armed with a loaded gun? How many would want that responsibility?

This 'arm the teachers' suggestion is a red herring. We need to safely secure the kids in place once something starts and/or work to prevent the threat from ever developing.
 
Show of hands, who thinks the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was good for the US (or for that matter the world) economy? Anyone have statistics on how many jobs were saved or how much our economy grew as a result of the Act?
 
mendelman said:
No armed teachers, staff or administrators in schools.

It's a fictional panacea that really won't, in my opinion, decrease a threat's potential level of harm.

How many burglars enter buildings where the security guard is stationed? Do we have armed roving bands of adults constantly circulating and positioned at every point of a school building?

Think about every teacher/staff/administrator you know/have known. How many of them would you want armed with a loaded gun? How many would want that responsibility?

This 'arm the teachers' suggestion is a red herring. We need to safely secure the kids in place once something starts and/or work to prevent the threat from ever developing.
Click to expand...

More than that... I just think about how much training law enforcement and military personnel go through to learn how to respond to situations like this. Is it really practical to think that a few classes and some occasional training can prepare a teacher to respond appropriately without putting themselves or other bystanders at risk in a mass shooting situation? It is a highly stressful environment and there are a ton of things you have to be aware of if you're going to engage in firing at someone with LOTS of people around. It creates a lot of liability.
 
Maister said:
Show of hands, who thinks the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was good for the US (or for that matter the world) economy? Anyone have statistics on how many jobs were saved or how much our economy grew as a result of the Act?
Click to expand...

Answer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiCFdWeQfA
 
mendelman said:
No armed teachers, staff or administrators in schools.

It's a fictional panacea that really won't, in my opinion, decrease a threat's potential level of harm.

How many burglars enter buildings where the security guard is stationed? Do we have armed roving bands of adults constantly circulating and positioned at every point of a school building?

Think about every teacher/staff/administrator you know/have known. How many of them would you want armed with a loaded gun? How many would want that responsibility?

This 'arm the teachers' suggestion is a red herring. We need to safely secure the kids in place once something starts and/or work to prevent the threat from ever developing.
Click to expand...

Yea... um. How has that approach worked so far? How many kids are being killed in these "Gun Free Zones"?

I would agree IF (and yes, that is a big if) we were able to safely secure the kids in place. Unfortunately, we haven't and I don't think we will. We have issues with the schools here putting in bidirectional radio repeaters to allow police and fire to communicate inside the school to those outside. There are tons of devices that were invented after Sandy Hook. How many of them were installed? The other day I walked my middle son to his class room just to see what would happen. There was a gun free zone sticker on the door, but no one there to actually enforce it. I did not check into the office but walked with him down the hall. The doors all have very basic and flimsy handles and locks that would not be difficult to kick in. No one said anything to me at all. I did the same thing at my oldest's school but they had newer metal doors that actually looked less secure than the wood doors at my middle son's school.

The stupid stickers on the doors are not going to keep the guns out of the schools or other buildings. If schools are going to be a gun free zone, then districts need to find a way to pay for a guard at a primary entrance and a metal detector. If we want these places to be as safe as airports and court houses, we need to do what it takes to really make a difference. Until then give the teachers the choice if they want to go through advanced training and background checks to carry a concealed weapon.

So back to the question... if you don't want to allow teachers who have gone through additional training and background checks to carry a concealed weapon in class, please share with us your genius plan to keep our students safe. You all seem super passionate about keeping guns out of the hands of those who you trust with your child's lives, so tell me and the rest of the world exactly what they need to do to protect the lives of our kids if you won't let them be armed. You don't have problems with famous people, politicians, wealthy people, and other people having armed body guards. Some of these people have almost zero training but I am sure that is beyond the point.
 
There are already guns in schools. They are in the hands of trained law enforcement officers called School Resource Officers or SROs. Just having a trained law enforcement officer with a firearm does not / has not stopped the crazies from shooting the place up...nor will having a somewhat trained educator with a firearm. This is a proven fact and not a theory.

Now can we make it more difficult to access a school? Yes.
Can we have more live action cameras (& not on a delay)? Yes.
Can we implement some quick fixes to doors for access like what happened to airplane cockpit doors after 9-11? Yes.
Do we HONESTLY think giving educators firearms will stop a determined person from entering a school and killing students and teachers? No.
 
michaelskis said:
So back to the question... if you don't want to allow teachers who have gone through additional training and background checks to carry a concealed weapon in class, please share with us your genius plan to keep our students safe. You all seem super passionate about keeping guns out of the hands of those who you trust with your child's lives, so tell me and the rest of the world exactly what they need to do to protect the lives of our kids if you won't let them be armed. You don't have problems with famous people, politicians, wealthy people, and other people having armed body guards. Some of these people have almost zero training but I am sure that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...

I think most of us that are opposed to this are also in favor of working on interventions that prevent a mass shooter from even engaging initially. No, a sign won't make people with a gun not enter a gun-free zone. But common sense gun control regulations can limit the access, peer training programs to encourage students starting from a very young age to encourage each other, stronger counseling services in schools, etc. Regardless, once an armed gunman gets into a school ready to cause damage, it's really too late to have a "good" solution.
 
Let's not gloss over the myth that the NRA likes to promote that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. The shooter in Parkland, Fl had never been arrested for or convicted of a crime that would disqualify him from legally purchasing a firearm. He was never adjudicated mentally unfit or a danger to himself or others which may have prevented him from legally purchasing or obtaining a firearm. He legally purchased the rifle he used in that school. By the NRA's standards, he was a good guy with a gun right up until he squeezed that trigger. Giving more "good guys" guns doesn't prevent gun violence, it just makes it easier and faster for a good guy to turn into a bad guy.
 
michaelskis said:
Yea... um. How has that approach worked so far? How many kids are being killed in these "Gun Free Zones"?

.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, I've typed and deleted responses to this issue all day. So at the risk of being labeled completely unsympathetic (which I most certainly am not!) here goes the answer to your question:

Not nearly enough to justify this absurd overreaction of arming teachers.

Yes, mass shootings are horrific simply because of their very nature and when it involves children it is even a worse blow to our sensibilities. But here's the thing. There are several things that kill a lot more school children every year than someone with a gun. A lot more. Look up how many children are killed when they are pedestrians. I saw one study that said for every hour of every day a teen pedestrian is killed. That's just teens. Kids are a hell of a lot safer once they get to school than when they're not there. We always want to put a band-aid on everything in this country. We don't treat the disease, we treat the symptom. How about we dedicate more funding to preventing child abuse that ends in death with anger management and parenting coping skills? How about we train teachers and others to perhaps better recognize at-risk/possibly dangerous kids. How about we make counseling for people who have serious emotional problems much more accessible and socially acceptable so that there is not such a stigma attached to it? I could go on and on.

My point is not that school shootings aren't completely tragic, just that a whole lot more kids die in other ways that can be prevented and maybe we should put more funding toward solving some of those problems instead of arming teachers who may or not be remotely ready to deal with such a situation. And don't tell me they will get "training". We have police officers who have training and it is assumed are prepared to shoot while being shot at. That doesn't always work as we've recently seen. Plus, look at the poor "hit" percentage of police officers when they are in a gunfight. The numbers are not good. Yet people want relatively untrained and untested armed teachers to be able to be mentally prepared to possibly take a life, fire a gun in a potentially very crowded area and be under control enough in a highly stressed environment to take and make a good shot. The National Association of School Resource Officers opposes arming teachers for a myriad of reasons. I guess in between actual instruction of students, preparing lesson plans, grading papers, being a social worker, guidance counselor, nurse, and god knows what else we ask teachers to be these days they should find time to wander down to to the range for some target practice and live fire exercises.
 
Note: I don't engage this thread often and almost never, but I felt I needed to this time. As you all know I have three elementary age children right now (2nd, 3rd & 4th).

michaelskis said:
Yea... um. How has that approach worked so far? How many kids are being killed in these "Gun Free Zones"?

I would agree IF (and yes, that is a big if) we were able to safely secure the kids in place.

[snip]

Some of these people have almost zero training but I am sure that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about "Gun Free Zone" policies or placards. So, stop.

There are probably almost innumerable ways to efficiently and cost effectively retrofit even the oldest operating school buildings and policies to slow or stop the impact of an attack, similar to the concepts of CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design).
  • require non-student controlled access through a highly visible path
  • tazer (maybe gun) armed guards (but friendly looking)
  • substantial fire doors (ie solid) for all classrooms and gathering spaces
  • exterior exit only doors on all classrooms and gathering spaces
  • all classrooms and gathering areas with at least one exterior wall
  • There are probably many others I don't know about or can think about at the moment since I'm not a design and safety professional, just a thoughtful reasonable concerned parent and human

From your son's school example, I think your administration is severely lacking on updating policies and procedures. You need to worry about that right now.

Our school has already implemented strict access control to the building for students and visitors alike. And if our school really wanted to get going we could implement some relatively simple building changes to accommodate secure in place plans or emergency classroom exit exterior doors as our school building, although built in 1966, is one floor and each classroom and gathering room has an exterior building wall.

Lastly, there is no reason to have more guns purposely put into a school when that will do nothing to make anyone more secure due to simple insufficient coverage. We should make it hard for people to be shot while within a school building and/or make it possible to get as many, if not all, people to escape from the building from as many different points as quickly as possible.
 
michaelskis said:
Yea... um. How has that approach worked so far? How many kids are being killed in these "Gun Free Zones"?

I would agree IF (and yes, that is a big if) we were able to safely secure the kids in place. Unfortunately, we haven't and I don't think we will. We have issues with the schools here putting in bidirectional radio repeaters to allow police and fire to communicate inside the school to those outside. There are tons of devices that were invented after Sandy Hook. How many of them were installed? The other day I walked my middle son to his class room just to see what would happen. There was a gun free zone sticker on the door, but no one there to actually enforce it. I did not check into the office but walked with him down the hall. The doors all have very basic and flimsy handles and locks that would not be difficult to kick in. No one said anything to me at all. I did the same thing at my oldest's school but they had newer metal doors that actually looked less secure than the wood doors at my middle son's school.

The stupid stickers on the doors are not going to keep the guns out of the schools or other buildings. If schools are going to be a gun free zone, then districts need to find a way to pay for a guard at a primary entrance and a metal detector. If we want these places to be as safe as airports and court houses, we need to do what it takes to really make a difference. Until then give the teachers the choice if they want to go through advanced training and background checks to carry a concealed weapon.

So back to the question... if you don't want to allow teachers who have gone through additional training and background checks to carry a concealed weapon in class, please share with us your genius plan to keep our students safe. You all seem super passionate about keeping guns out of the hands of those who you trust with your child's lives, so tell me and the rest of the world exactly what they need to do to protect the lives of our kids if you won't let them be armed. You don't have problems with famous people, politicians, wealthy people, and other people having armed body guards. Some of these people have almost zero training but I am sure that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...



This wasn’t a gun free zone. There was an armed police officer there.
 
45 is meeting with Kim Jung Un. Other than hoping he doesn't get played, I actually applaud this move, albeit skeptical because this seems like I have seen this play out on some reality tv show before.
 
There are several thoughts, but to summarize, I don't support the NRA, I think teachers should be given the choice to conceal if they are willing to go thgoub6 and pay for extra training, and I think that we as a society need to do a better job of working with youth to prevent these kids from wanting to do something like this. I so think we need to do a better job to secure our classrooms and make gun free zones truly gun free. Otherwise people conceal carry.

I applaud Trump for takIing a meeting with the rocket man and basketball is not a real sport.
 
DV0KF7BVQAAzcrx.jpg
 
The Terminator said:
Whats worse. Putin's Russia or the USSR?

Its hard to say.
Click to expand...

Super Amputee Cat said:
Putin. No question. His is the biggest monster on the face of the earth. And he gave Trump the Presidency, creating the biggest monster in the free world.

Remember, that the USSR had Gorby.
Click to expand...

Maister said:
USSR hands down. Two words: Josef Stalin.
Click to expand...

Stalin was my first thought as well. How many millions did his purges kill off? Putin is no saint, but he's also no Stalin.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Putin is no saint, but he's also no Stalin.
Click to expand...

Only because he knows he could never get away with it. But he does have the will to destroy millions. Plus Stalin would never have even dreamed of hacking the U.S. elections which brought about a Trump Presidency.

And only in his wettest dreams can Trump get away with what Putin has (hackings, poisonings, terrorist attacks, bombings, crushing all form of dissent, etc)
 
The Pennsylvania 18th district seems to have elected a democrat. Another tRump supported candidate might have bit the dust.

However back in DC, the continually changing new cabinet is starting to look like Faux News pundits cashing in.
 
Yet another special election where a ruby red district appears to have gone blue. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ults-pennsylvania-house-special-election.html The margin of victory is razor thin and it's possible Saccone could eke by on a recount, but regardless the final count, the mere fact that this election was even close to begin with is itself newsworthy. There was no scandal involving Saccone and he'd won previous elections by comfortable margins, and the 18th Pennsylvania Congressional district was created/designed/gerrymandered specifically to produce wins for the GOP. I'm sure the talking heads on the right are going to try to dismiss this as being somehow an anomaly about a specific candidate, despite Trump personally campaigning for Saccone in a district he carried in 2016 by 20 points, and therefore be no cause for broader GOP concern, but special elections are usually bellwethers for midterm election results. If so, we could be looking at a wave election in November.
 
Let me start by saying that I don't like Trump and I question if he had any involvement in it, but, Gina Haspel might become the first woman to lead the CIA. I think the media has not said much if anything about it because it goes contrary to the womanizing picture they painted of Trump. (Which I believe is accurate)


on a different note:
To all the students who walked out of their classes today to protest guns. Perhaps you should also walk up to the outcasts at your school and become their friends. Perhaps you should work together to stop people from being bullied. Perhaps you should find a way to help instead of shun your classmates. Let's fix the problem instead of taking away a tool.
 
GOP Analysis from PA special election:

Conor Lamb ran as a republican & Saccone was a terrible candidate.


My take:
Who has tRump supported that lost? Saccone, Moore, Strange just to start...
 
JNA said:
Trump floats the idea of creating a 'Space Force' to fight wars in space

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/tru...ing-a-space-force-to-fight-wars-in-space.html


Will this give new meaning to "space cadet" ? ;) :lmao:
Click to expand...

That reminded me of a cadence that one of the Marines I worked with used to sing when we would run. It went something like:

:8: It won't be long, I've heard them say,
'Til Space Marines will lead the way!
We'll fly to Mars to fight the war,
And blast right out the shuttle door! :8:
 
Planit said:
Saccone was a terrible candidate.
Click to expand...
Thing is he wasn't a bad candidate. He's not a political genius but how many people running for office are? He seems to represent fairly orthodox conservative views and voted consistently along party lines during his tenure in office. The guy even tried to throw red meat to his base near the end where he accused democrats of hating Trump, America, and even God hisself. A tactic straight out of the alt right playbook. No, under normal circumstances this would have been a snoozer of an election and voters should have churned out a double digit win over a Dem opponent based on nothing more than the absence of scandal concerning Saccone and his party affiliation. All indicators point towards this election being a referendum on Trump. The interviews at the exit polls seem to reinforce this notion.
 
What do you think it would take for people to vote for a 3rd party? Do you think that we will see a 3rd party in the WH in our life time?
 
Planit said:
GOP Analysis from PA special election:

Conor Lamb ran as a republican & Saccone was a terrible candidate.
Click to expand...

Maister said:
Thing is he wasn't a bad candidate. He's not a political genius but how many people running for office are? He seems to represent fairly orthodox conservative views and voted consistently along party lines during his tenure in office. The guy even tried to throw red meat to his base near the end where he accused democrats of hating Trump, America, and even God hisself. A tactic straight out of the alt right playbook. No, under normal circumstances this would have been a snoozer of an election and voters should have churned out a double digit win over a Dem opponent based on nothing more than the absence of scandal concerning Saccone and his party affiliation. All indicators point towards this election being a referendum on Trump. The interviews at the exit polls seem to reinforce this notion.
Click to expand...

All the stuff I've read leading up to the election painted Saccone as a pretty terrible campaigner, but I agree that his views seemed to be pretty standard fare 2018 conservative Republican type stuff. I don't think he was particularly prepared (or his heart just wasn't really in it) to make the jump from running for the state house to running for the U.S. House and the local GOP didn't take Lamb to be a serious contender. He also didn't have either a majority or plurality of votes in his party nominating conference which may indicate there were some folks in the local party machine who weren't all too thrilled about him as a candidate. I also wonder how many Republican voters, who list "family values" as some of their primary motivations when casting votes stayed home yesterday because they were just tired of politicians who don't practice what they preach and were disillusioned with the entire party?

Either way, going from Trump winning the district by 20 points in '16 to the district turning blue in the special is a huge swing, no matter how good or crappy of a candidate is running.
 
I read an interesting thing on the Russia involvement in the election. Apparently, the goal was not to have Trump win, but to tear the US apart.

What are your thoughts? Is it working?
 
michaelskis said:
What do you think it would take for people to vote for a 3rd party? Do you think that we will see a 3rd party in the WH in our life time?
Click to expand...

No, it will not happen in our life time. As I said before, whether local, state or national, people will always re-elect the same stupid career politicians. The closest in my lifetime was Ross Perot and that is now ancient history.

michaelskis said:
I read an interesting thing on the Russia involvement in the election. Apparently, the goal was not to have Trump win, but to tear the US apart.

What are your thoughts? Is it working?
Click to expand...

It was both. And yes it is working, better than even Putin himself could have even originally anticipated.
 
Super Amputee Cat said:
Only because he knows he could never get away with it. But he does have the will to destroy millions. Plus Stalin would never have even dreamed of hacking the U.S. elections which brought about a Trump Presidency.

And only in his wettest dreams can Trump get away with what Putin has (hackings, poisonings, terrorist attacks, bombings, crushing all form of dissent, etc)
Click to expand...

Yeah, Stalin is just in the top two of all-time mass murderers, but Putin is totes worse.

Good grief...

:r:
 
The GOP poured a ton of outside :money: in to support Saccone.

tRump, Pence & tRump Jr made personal appearances to promote him.

He wasn't bad until he lost.

michaelskis said:
What do you think it would take for people to vote for a 3rd party? Do you think that we will see a 3rd party in the WH in our life time?
Click to expand...

I think there will be a "No Party" candidate before a 3rd party is established.
 
I think Trump will help the 3rd party movement. Just as I think Clinton did. Both candidates were terrible. The D's put Clinton up because it was "her turn". They didn't put up a reasonable, rational, or good candidate. The R's put up someone they didn't want. Because he just kinda showed up and beat the ones they did want.

I think someone who can self-finance will be key, like Perot was. Cuban, Schultz, Hickenlooper, Bloomberg could all do it.
 
Hink said:
I think Trump will help the 3rd party movement. Just as I think Clinton did. Both candidates were terrible. The D's put Clinton up because it was "her turn". They didn't put up a reasonable, rational, or good candidate. The R's put up someone they didn't want. Because he just kinda showed up and beat the ones they did want.

I think someone who can self-finance will be key, like Perot was. Cuban, Schultz, Hickenlooper, Bloomberg could all do it.
Click to expand...

While John Hickenlooper was a relatively successful businessman before entering politics there is no way he is wealthy enough to self-finance a campaign at the national level. IIRC, most estimates of his personal net worth are in the $10 to $12 million range which wouldn't be enough to run a campaign (including personnel and advertising costs) in more than a couple states on a shoestring budget. That's not peanuts, but it's not the billions that the others on your list have and a few million dollars wouldn't begin to make an impact in some of the important larger media markets like South Florida or NOVA.
 
Now I'm supposed to feel bad for Tillerson because he got fired. And he didn't get fired over twitter. He was told his days were numbered and that a replacement was being sought. Finding out "when" over twitter is kinda crappy but whatever. I don't feel sorry for a gajillionaire oilman who can go back to his 10,000 acre ranch.

I am not a fan of this particular president but the non-stop media bashing at every turn is getting absurd. They just cannot accept that he won. Yeah, when stuff that truly matters happens, by all means call him out. But this fake outrage over some of the stuff he does is just ridiculous. Where was the outrage when President Obama ordered an American citizen killed without due process? THAT should be something that everyone should have been marching in the streets about. But we heard hardly a whimper. WTF?
 
MD, I certainly understand your point. However I will say this pResident offers ammunition each time he opens his mouth.

Case in point is this latest gem that I pulled out of a car-centric site:
In a speech on Thursday to Missouri donors, Trump was discussing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and how he felt it was unfair to American interests. To illustrate his point, Trump told this anecdote about Japan’s allegedly overly-strict automobile inspection process:

“It’s the bowling ball test. They take a bowling ball from 20 feet up in the air and drop it on the hood of the car. If the hood dents, the car doesn’t qualify. It’s horrible.”

What? That's right, there is no 'bowling ball test' & no car would be dent free if a bowling ball was dropped on it.
 
But he's right on the whole Space Force thing. We gotta protect our borders from them Martians. Fore you knows it they'll be takin ar jobs!
 
1) The media fawned all over Trump when he said stupid shit before he became a candidate. Because of Trump's name recognition, it got air play. Lots of air play.
2) The media fawned all over Trump when he said outrageous shit after he became a candidate. Because of Trump's name recognition, and his candidacy, it got air play, to the exclusion of many other Republican candidates (few of whom were worth mentioning anyway). The media let Trump (or were tricked by Trump) (or didn't realize what effect they were having for Trump) to the point the other candidates couldn't get air time come hell or high water. And Trump became the nominee.
3) The media badly mis-read the mood in the country leading up to the election but Trump fueled the nativism and racism openly and was rewarded for it.
4) Trump is POTUS and he's a pathological liar now busily surrounding himself with sycophantic yes men. I won't cry for Tillerson, but he never denied calling POTUS a moron and never apologized. I give him credit for that.
5) I won't shed a tear for Anwar al-Awlaki. Don't incite terrorism (Ft. Hood shooting) in the US and do so with a bunch of bandits in some foreign desert and you will get the due process your American citizenship deserves. Otherwise, if you feel lucky, take your chances.
 
michaelskis said:
Let me start by saying that I don't like Trump and I question if he had any involvement in it, but, Gina Haspel might become the first woman to lead the CIA. I think the media has not said much if anything about it because it goes contrary to the womanizing picture they painted of Trump. (Which I believe is accurate)

l.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike. I wonder what media you are watching where you got the idea that the media is not mentioning Haspel as the potential first woman to lead CIA? I heard that mentioned on NPR, and NBC, and read it mentioned on WaPo and some others I can’t remember. I’m wondering why you think they haven’t mentioned it.
 
Back
Top