• 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

By now, many of you have heard of the shooting at a church in Texas that could have become a mass shooting if it was not for a well trained person who was able to legally carry a weapon into the church.

This is an example of where concealed carry and training can work very well together. The guy who started the situation, was not legally permitted to have a weapon... but he did anyways.
 
michaelskis said:
By now, many of you have heard of the shooting at a church in Texas that could have become a mass shooting if it was not for a well trained person who was able to legally carry a weapon into the church.

This is an example of where concealed carry and training can work very well together. The guy who started the situation, was not legally permitted to have a weapon... but he did anyways.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if mandatory firearms training might not be the worst idea. I mean it certainly wouldn't solve mass shootings, but it would at least serve to adequately train people on how to use firearms. I think it's absurd that someone who has never shot a gun before can go in and get one. You can't legally drive a car without a license, so why should owning a gun be any different?
 
AG74683 said:
Sometimes I wonder if mandatory firearms training might not be the worst idea. I mean it certainly wouldn't solve mass shootings, but it would at least serve to adequately train people on how to use firearms. I think it's absurd that someone who has never shot a gun before can go in and get one. You can't legally drive a car without a license, so why should owning a gun be any different?
Click to expand...

Personally, I believe that if you are to carry a gun in public, you should have on going training on how to use it. I think it should be strongly encouraged for anyone who owns a gun, but an absolute and ongoing requirement for anyone with a concealed permit.
 
michaelskis said:
Personally, I believe that if you are to carry a gun in public, you should have on going training on how to use it. I think it should be strongly encouraged for anyone who owns a gun, but an absolute and ongoing requirement for anyone with a concealed permit.
Click to expand...

yes mandatory gun training to own a gun and a refresher every x number of year (3 to 5)
 
mendelman said:
Analogous to the Bin Laden raid/kill in Pakistan under the Obama Administration?
Click to expand...

That one was different IMO. Bin Laden was a known enemy combatant and head of an organization we were/are at war with. Bin Laden was also a known target to the general public at large and seen by most of Americans as a dire threat. Pakistan had no open allegiance to Bin Laden if I recall correctly.

Soleimani is different. He's not well known outside of those with a significant amount of political knowledge. Yes, the IRGC is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, but unlike Al Qaeda, that opinion is only shared by Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The IRGC is completely backed by the Iranian government and is a member of the Iranian armed forces. It's an attack on a military asset by what amounts to a hostile force. I don't think people felt the same about Bin Laden to be sure.

All that said, I think he was absolutely a target that needed to be eliminated. It was pretty clear that Soleimani was instrumental in the attacks on American and other international assets using proxy paramilitary forces (similar to us supporting the Contras). I think it's one of those bad/bad situations where no one will win. The question is whether Iran will actually act on it. I think it unlikely we will see any sort of retaliation for it.
 
He was a terrorist and needed to be taken out:


Just a few other thoughts... it makes me want to puke when I hear Hollywood Liberals defend this guy and apologize for the US taking out a terrorist.
 
michaelskis said:
He was a terrorist and needed to be taken out:


Just a few other thoughts... it makes me want to puke when I hear Hollywood Liberals defend this guy and apologize for the US taking out a terrorist.
Click to expand...
The difference between a terrorist and a leader of a country who harbors terrorists is a fine line. Bin Laden was not part of an organized government. Soleimani was. You can believe he was a terrorist, but he was a different type of one.

Personally, the problem I have with it, isn't that he was a good guy, or shouldn't have been targeted, it is that our President unilaterally decided that he had to go. He didn't declare war on Iran. He didn't ask Congress for approval. He just assassinated the second in command of a foreign country.

I don't think anyone should be apologizing for this guy. But I also think this just shows again that Trump does not understand any foreign policy. He has now created a stronger hatred of the US from Iran and it looks like Iraq. This isn't going to solve the middle east problem. This is going to put us into either a war, or at least a prolonged fight again (still?).

People who compare this to Bin Laden are blatantly trying to ignore the facts of the Bin Laden mission.
 
I don't take a word Trump or anyone of his administration says at face value. Period.
I believe this was an impetuous act, taken without regard for consequences, and absolutely without a thought of some strategy.
The follow-up threat of destroying cultural sites is disgusting and below everything America once stood for.
Trump and his Republican enablers are despicable.
 
Gedunker said:
I don't take a word Trump or anyone of his administration says at face value. Period.
I believe this was an impetuous act, taken without regard for consequences, and absolutely without a thought of some strategy.
The follow-up threat of destroying cultural sites is disgusting and below everything America once stood for.
Trump and his Republican enablers are despicable.
Click to expand...
The cultural threat would be a crime if Trump went through with it. Although I truly believe he doesn't care, I still don't think he wants war criminal on his resume along with Impeached President.
 
From IT Dept -

Due to the increasing tensions in the Middle East, the possibility of cyber-attacks against governmental entities is very high. It is important that everyone remains vigilant to this threat.
Please be careful when opening emails and/or attachments from unknown senders, or when receiving unexpected messages or attachments from what appear to be legitimate senders.

When in doubt please err on the side of caution and either delete the message, use the Phish Alert icon, or contact the Help Desk for assistance.
Click to expand...
 
mendelman said:
That's a bit much, mskis. I haven't heard anyone in the US defending him.
Click to expand...
This was in response to Rose McGowan's comments. I guess she was not 'defending him' as much as apologizing that we took him out.

Hink said:
The difference between a terrorist and a leader of a country who harbors terrorists is a fine line. Bin Laden was not part of an organized government. Soleimani was. You can believe he was a terrorist, but he was a different type of one.

Personally, the problem I have with it, isn't that he was a good guy, or shouldn't have been targeted, it is that our President unilaterally decided that he had to go. He didn't declare war on Iran. He didn't ask Congress for approval. He just assassinated the second in command of a foreign country.

I don't think anyone should be apologizing for this guy. But I also think this just shows again that Trump does not understand any foreign policy. He has now created a stronger hatred of the US from Iran and it looks like Iraq. This isn't going to solve the middle east problem. This is going to put us into either a war, or at least a prolonged fight again (still?).

People who compare this to Bin Laden are blatantly trying to ignore the facts of the Bin Laden mission.
Click to expand...

I don't think one's position in a political structure defines what a terrorist is or is not. One of the definitions state that a Terrorist is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I don't think he was as bad as Bin Laden but let me ask you this... if we could have taken out Bin Laden in 2000, should we have? Because all indications are this is the trajectory that Solemani was going, regardless of position in a government.

Just imagine if Kim Jong Un started doing what he has threaten to terrorize other countries... would he be called a terrorist?

Hink said:
The cultural threat would be a crime if Trump went through with it. Although I truly believe he doesn't care, I still don't think he wants war criminal on his resume along with Impeached President.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree. There are thresholds to decency and I would hope that this would be even too low for Trump.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't think one's position in a political structure defines what a terrorist is or is not. One of the definitions state that a Terrorist is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I don't think he was as bad as Bin Laden but let me ask you this... if we could have taken out Bin Laden in 2000, should we have? Because all indications are this is the trajectory that Solemani was going, regardless of position in a government.

Just imagine if Kim Jong Un started doing what he has threaten to terrorize other countries... would he be called a terrorist?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you are in a political structure it is different. Maybe not if we weren't a western democratic government, but we are. The FBI states: International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored). The Trump Administration did declare the IRGC as a foreign terrorist group in April 2019 so you can argue that they determined he was a terrorist.

No, Kim would be the leader of country that we would likely be at war with. It is a different discussion. As we have used terrorist, and terrorism, in the last 20 years, it has generally been used to define a group that does not have international power or is recognized by the international community. Bin Laden was part of al-Qaeda. That isn't a government. That is an organization that was deemed to be a terrorist group. I mean we can say the same thing about about ISIS, Al-Shabaab, or Boka Haram. The Taliban is a bit tougher, as they are playing a role in making Afganistans government more stable.

Killing the leader of a country we are at war with is more clear cut. We declared war on you because ostensibly you did something we thought was bad. We clearly gave you the chance to back down, you likely didn't, and we went to war. War is terrible, but the rules are less muddy.
 
Of course we are already doing the spin to make this election worthy. He's out there yelling about Iran not having nukes which we all remember was one of his big original I hate Obama and his deal with Iran promises.
 
Hink said:
The difference between a terrorist and a leader of a country who harbors terrorists is a fine line. Bin Laden was not part of an organized government. Soleimani was. You can believe he was a terrorist, but he was a different type of one.

Personally, the problem I have with it, isn't that he was a good guy, or shouldn't have been targeted, it is that our President unilaterally decided that he had to go. He didn't declare war on Iran. He didn't ask Congress for approval. He just assassinated the second in command of a foreign country.

I don't think anyone should be apologizing for this guy. But I also think this just shows again that Trump does not understand any foreign policy. He has now created a stronger hatred of the US from Iran and it looks like Iraq. This isn't going to solve the middle east problem. This is going to put us into either a war, or at least a prolonged fight again (still?).

People who compare this to Bin Laden are blatantly trying to ignore the facts of the Bin Laden mission.
Click to expand...

Soleimani was a POS, I think there isn't much disagreement on that. That's where the similarities end with bin Laden. Middle Eastern politics are complicated on a good day. Iranian politics are way more complicated than Middle Eastern politics. I think Cheetolini erred with this assassination. He's playing marbles against a Grand Champion Chess Wizard here. This will NOT end well at all and likely has done irreparable harm to any hope of normalizing Iran-Western relationships for the foreseeable future.

I view this as just the latest in a long line of US interference. A great book to read is "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer published in 2003. The context of past misdeeds of the US in Iran helps bring understanding to what is happening now.
 
www.cnn.com

'You're not a dictator': Democrats criticize Trump tweet on notifying Congress about Iran military action

Democrats on Sunday deeply criticized President Donald Trump for appearing to declare his tweets would serve as enough notification for Congress if the US were to act militarily in response to an Iranian retaliation, a move that prompted the Democratic-led House Foreign Affairs Committee to...
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

First of all, seriously? Twitter is definitely not the appropriate medium to be conveying this type of information.

Also, what is the consequence if the President does violate the War Powers Act? It would still be up to Congress to hold him accountable, right? This is ridiculous.
 
Fox News Irony

Well that didn't take long. Fox personalities are now saying that we should trust our intelligence members with this recent turn of events. Seems just like a few weeks ago they were condemning the same intelligence community as being part of the 'deep state' trying to oust tRump, and been doing it for the last 3 years.
 
Planit said:
Fox personalities are now saying that we should trust our intelligence members with this recent turn of events. Seems just like a few weeks ago they were condemning the same intelligence community as being part of the 'deep state' trying to oust tRump, and been doing it for the last 3 years.
Click to expand...
Can't have it both ways. Either the intelligence community is to be trusted or they're not.
 
I'm surprised the robot heads over at Fox haven't exploded yet. That's some good conflict avoidance/spin programming.
 
AG74683 said:
I think it unlikely we will see any sort of retaliation for it.
Click to expand...

Ooops, I was wrong. It doesn't sound like a massive attack though. There's been no news on any fatalities from the attack, but it sounds like maybe it was just more of a show of force, designed specifically to avoid deaths. Now the question is if Cheeto in Chief responds or decides to let it go and cool things off.

A Ukrainian Airlines 737 crashed last night. Unclear what the cause was, but video of it shows the plan on fire as it fell back to earth. Unlikely it was a simple "mechanical failure", I suspect it was shot down. By whom....who knows.
 
Last edited:
AG74683 said:
I just don't trust anything that way anymore. Not after the Malaysian air flight got shot down.
Click to expand...
As Gedunker said up thread, I don't believe or trust anything said by the Trump Administration.

I watched the Pompeo interview on Face The Nation (CBS) this past Sunday and was royally pissed at Pompeo's 'not answers' and general air of (false) righteousness.

Their incompetence, hypocrisy and narcissism has completely undermined any credibility they may have had at the beginning.
 
Last edited:
AG74683 said:
A Ukrainian Airlines 737 crashed last night. Unclear what the cause was, but video of it shows the plan on fire as it fell back to earth. Unlikely it was a simple "mechanical failure", I suspect it was shot down. By whom....who knows.
Click to expand...

So now it comes out that the airline was shot down by Iran and they called it mechanical failure to hide the fact that they are woefully under equipped to attack the US.

One of my kids said that another kid at school was super worried that they would bomb his house thanks mostly to his liberal parents feeding ideas that the US is defenseless and that Iran has a superior military. I absolutely think they could cause serious damage in the middle east, but I don't think they have the capability to bring the fight to our door step.

I hope that this is the end the the attacks. We took out their general, they threw rocks, we laughed and went about our business.
 
michaelskis said:
So now it comes out that the airline was shot down by Iran and they called it mechanical failure to hide the fact that they are woefully under equipped to attack the US.

One of my kids said that another kid at school was super worried that they would bomb his house thanks mostly to his liberal parents feeding ideas that the US is defenseless and that Iran has a superior military. I absolutely think they could cause serious damage in the middle east, but I don't think they have the capability to bring the fight to our door step.

I hope that this is the end the the attacks. We took out their general, they threw rocks, we laughed and went about our business.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it actually may have been a failure of the IFF on the plane, where it was either off or showing as foe which is why the Iranian anti-aircraft weaponry keyed in on the plane.

I do believe that Iran could bring the fight to the US. I fully believe they have sleeper cells ready to attack from within. I doubt it will be on a 9/11 scale. It will be similar to what we've seen in Europe (cars as weapons, shootings, etc.). Iran is pretty infamous for their use of proxies, hence why Soleimani was taken out.

It's weird to say, but I think Iran was 100% justified in their attack.
 
So, let me get this correct....

The US kills a terrorist and people lose their freaking minds, but when that Terrorist's country shoots down a commercial airliner full of Canadians it's crickets?
 
michaelskis said:
So, let me get this correct....

The US kills a terrorist and people lose their freaking minds, but when that Terrorist's country shoots down a commercial airliner full of Canadians it's crickets?
Click to expand...


Not exactly. Lots of news about the "mechanical failure" & no emergency radio & black box coverup & flash in the sky...all pointing fingers at Iran who have now admitted it. Lots of tension over there now too with continued protests getting news.
 
michaelskis said:
So, let me get this correct....

The US kills a terrorist and people lose their freaking minds, but when that Terrorist's country shoots down a commercial airliner full of Canadians it's crickets?
Click to expand...
You really need to put "terrorist" in quotations.

I also don't believe that it is crickets. Every news agency is talking about it. I mean NPR / CNN / MSNBC all did. FoxNews did a story on how Democrats aren't angry enough about it. Maybe that is what you read?
 
Hink said:
You really need to put "terrorist" in quotations.

I also don't believe that it is crickets. Every news agency is talking about it. I mean NPR / CNN / MSNBC all did. FoxNews did a story on how Democrats aren't angry enough about it. Maybe that is what you read?
Click to expand...

It was more the response from the local news that get's their world/national stuff from the big networks that are available by antenna (ABC, CBS, NBC). Our Fox Broadcasting does not have news. And given that I don't have cable and I don't listen to NPR, I guess my exposure to bias new networks is limited.
 
Haven't researched this yet, but wonder if Trump is impeached in, say, March 2020, can he still run for President in the election and possibly be elected anyways?

This is a thought exercise, but interesting to understand. Trump seems to be the type of personality that would do something like this.
 
mendelman said:
Haven't researched this yet, but wonder if Trump is impeached in, say, March 2020, can he still run for President in the election and possibly be elected anyways?

This is a thought exercise, but interesting to understand. Trump seems to be the type of personality that would do something like this.
Click to expand...

Well, he's already been impeached, but I know what you are getting at. ;)

My understanding of Article I, Section 3 is that punishment from impeachment is removal from office and disqualification from holding that office in the future but if the Senate were to vote to convict they could write their judgement to be anything upto and including that. So I guess theoretically, they could vote to remove but not disqualify or even disqualify from running in November but not actually removing now.

In any case, if he were to be convicted and removed (which I don't really see happening), I would think the punishment from the Senate would be simply removed now and disqualified in the future. I don't think they would try to get all cute with the outcome because that would just invite another court battle that I don't think anybody wants, especially in an election year. But remember, all of that speculation is moot if he's never actually convicted anyway.
 
mendelman said:
Haven't researched this yet, but wonder if Trump is impeached in, say, March 2020, can he still run for President in the election and possibly be elected anyways?

This is a thought exercise, but interesting to understand. Trump seems to be the type of personality that would do something like this.
Click to expand...

I mean he's already been impeached. Do you mean if he's actually removed from office?
 
AG74683 said:
I mean he's already been impeached. Do you mean if he's actually removed from office?
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yes, actually removed.

I know if technically permitted, he's likely to get prosecuted in NY State the second he's not President.

WSU MUP Student said:
In any case, if he were to be convicted and removed (which I don't really see happening).
Click to expand...
Everyone also knew he wouldn't be elected in 2016, so....
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting paradox... what happens if in October he is convicted by the Senate, he is no longer eligible to become President? That is not enough time for the GOP to do anything to get someone else on the ballot.
 
mendelman said:
Thanks. Yes, actually removed.
I know if technically permitted, he's likely to get prosecuted in NY State the second he's not President.
Everyone also knew he wouldn't be elected in 2016, so....
Click to expand...

This is probably where the confusion sets in that "if he's impeached/not impeached he gets 4 more years since the others won't count". No lie, I literally heard someone say that, and he was dead serious.

That said, if he IS removed from office, I doubt that he ever gets tried by anyone outside of the Senate for anything. He'll immediately be pardoned by Pence.
 
Teh Donald said this -

But how about the shower? You go into a shower, and I have this beautiful head of hair. I need a lot of water. You go into the shower, right? You turn on the water. Drip, drip, drip. I call the guy, something wrong with this? No, sir. It's just the restrictor. So you're in there five times longer than you're supposed to be. You use probably more water. And it's a very unpleasant experience. Right? So we're getting rid of the restrictors, you're going to have full shower flow. You'll see.
Click to expand...

www.cnn.com

Donald Trump's war on toilets (and sinks and showers and dishwashers)

President Donald Trump has a thing for household appliances. Or more accurately, a thing against them.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Any Cyburbian have a "beautiful head of hair" like Teh Donald ?
 
Ursus has beautiful hair. I'm sure he's all for high pressure showers, but if you don't have pressure I think it's a bigger issue than the restrictor.
 
giphy.gif
 
A state senator made a "joke" to a reporter.

I asked Lucido for a moment to address the issue at hand, and he told me he would catch up with me after he was finished honoring the group of students.​
As I turned to walk away, he asked, “You’ve heard of De La Salle, right?”​
I told him I hadn’t.​
“It’s an all boys’ school,” he told me.“You should hang around! You could have a lot of fun with these boys, or they could have a lot of fun with you.”​
The teenagers burst into an Old Boys’ Network-type of laughter, and I walked away knowing that I had been the punchline of their “locker room” talk.​
Except it wasn’t the locker room; it was the Senate chamber. And this isn’t high school. It’s my career.​
I’m 22 years old and one of the youngest current Capitol reporters. The senator’s insinuating comments about the “fun” I might have with a group of teenage boys was belittling and it came from a place of power.​

And once again my fair state :mi: is getting national attention, thanks to this clod.

WaPo!

NYT!

National column

CBS
 
Veloise said:
A state senator made a "joke" to a reporter.

I asked Lucido for a moment to address the issue at hand, and he told me he would catch up with me after he was finished honoring the group of students.​
As I turned to walk away, he asked, “You’ve heard of De La Salle, right?”​
I told him I hadn’t.​
“It’s an all boys’ school,” he told me.“You should hang around! You could have a lot of fun with these boys, or they could have a lot of fun with you.”​
The teenagers burst into an Old Boys’ Network-type of laughter, and I walked away knowing that I had been the punchline of their “locker room” talk.​
Except it wasn’t the locker room; it was the Senate chamber. And this isn’t high school. It’s my career.​
I’m 22 years old and one of the youngest current Capitol reporters. The senator’s insinuating comments about the “fun” I might have with a group of teenage boys was belittling and it came from a place of power.​
Click to expand...
Sounds like the the majority leader (a republican) is calling for an investigation and is speaking out saying that this type of harassment is not acceptable.
 
Back
Top