Terrorism Attack Lower Manhattan 8 Dead still developing

gimmesometruth27

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Bentleyspop said:

2 days after the Las Vegas Mass Shooting by a white Christian male in which 59 people were killed by automatic weapons bought legally in the U.S. herr dRumpf said it was to early to discuss policy or politics about the mass shooting and or gun control.

15 hours after the terrorist  attack in NYC by a young muslim male from Uzbekistan in which 8 people were killed herr dRumpf was politicizing the event by trying to blame Senator Schumer and th visa lottery that allowed the perpetrator to legally immigrate to America.

I don't think it s a white guy vs Muslim issue: one fits his agenda and the other doesn't. 

However on the flip side democrats quickly used vegas as a means to attempt to pass gun control but I haven't seen any democrats talk about limiting immigration/tightening our borders since yesterday. 
It works both ways. 

Both issues fit into trump’s agenda: white male Americans good, brown people bad and/or less than. 

so what have democrats suggested or done to try and fix the problem?  we can bash trump all we want but democrats are equal to blame.  

What are democrats equal to blame? Please be specific.

democrats haven't had (as far as I know) any ideas on how to tighten/secure our borders since yesterday's terrorist attack.  Again, they suggested all sorts of gun control measures after vegas because it fits their agenda but are silent when it comes to closing/tightening our borders after yesterday.

i can play the same game republicans play after a mass shooting.

"it is too early to talk policy. let's not politicize this incident."

there. see how stupid that sounds?

agreed.  it's politics 101.  both parties are the problem and not the solution.  until someone reaches out and sits down and finds some middle ground terrorists will continue to be allowed in this country and gun violence will continue to be a problem (along with many many other problems in this great country).

there isn't any middle anymore. its over.

rather than trump trying to offer condolences to the families and try to heal the country, what does he do? he blames SCHUMER for this and wants to keep muslims out. that is why nothing will ever get done.

I don't like trump at all but let's be fair: it was one tweet amongst many.  
He did say things (i'm only going on twitter) like:

We mourn the horrifying terrorist attack in NYC. All of America is praying and grieving for the families who lost their precious loved ones.

My thoughts, condolences and prayers to the victims and families of the New York City terrorist attack. God and your country are with you!

We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough!

Thank you to the GREAT NYPD, First Responders and all govt officials for having handled the terrible West Side attack so professionally!

and I'm guessing a lot of you don't agree, but he has had suggestions to stop more terrorist attacks like:
I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!

We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter).

CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil. NOT ACCEPTABLE!

you know this is all bullshit, right? he says things on twitter, then either doe not follow up in speaking with the press, or does not follow up via his press team. he is saying some of these things because he is being told to say something supportive. these are probably written for him.

the second part, about his suggestions, he can't do on his own. these are all laws, and he can't change them. he is speaking to his base. most americans will not support his "extreme vetting" because it opposes what the country was founded on and what most americans believe. he can stomp his feet all he wants, but he has 33% approval rating. the country is over him and the majority will not support him no matter what he wants to do. he has zero political capital left less than one year into his term. he is under investigation and may end up indicted. none of what he proposes is going to happen because democrats will tie it to republicans in the campaign.

On twitter he has nearly 42 million followers so what does it matter if he follows it up with the press or says it....it is communicated to the masses.  and again I don't like the guy but he did pay respect to the victims and their families.  

And I disagree because I think most americans would support extreme vetting.  Yes this country was founded on immigration but not from countries that support terrorism.  

trump has a lot of bot followers. over half of them have not tweeted anything in over a year. this is well documented.

also, show me polls suggesting americans would majority favor "extreme vetting". 

i will save you time, because there aren't any.

also, why does his muslim ban, a form of exteme vetting,  keep losing in court? because what he proposes is illegal and unconstitutional.

gimmesometruth27

if those "rights" are up for debate and potentially amended, so is the 2nd amendment.

tbergs

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Go Beavers said:

mcgruff10 said:

Bentleyspop said:

2 days after the Las Vegas Mass Shooting by a white Christian male in which 59 people were killed by automatic weapons bought legally in the U.S. herr dRumpf said it was to early to discuss policy or politics about the mass shooting and or gun control.

15 hours after the terrorist  attack in NYC by a young muslim male from Uzbekistan in which 8 people were killed herr dRumpf was politicizing the event by trying to blame Senator Schumer and th visa lottery that allowed the perpetrator to legally immigrate to America.

I don't think it s a white guy vs Muslim issue: one fits his agenda and the other doesn't. 

However on the flip side democrats quickly used vegas as a means to attempt to pass gun control but I haven't seen any democrats talk about limiting immigration/tightening our borders since yesterday. 
It works both ways. 

Both issues fit into trump’s agenda: white male Americans good, brown people bad and/or less than. 

so what have democrats suggested or done to try and fix the problem?  we can bash trump all we want but democrats are equal to blame.  

What are democrats equal to blame? Please be specific.

democrats haven't had (as far as I know) any ideas on how to tighten/secure our borders since yesterday's terrorist attack.  Again, they suggested all sorts of gun control measures after vegas because it fits their agenda but are silent when it comes to closing/tightening our borders after yesterday.

i can play the same game republicans play after a mass shooting.

"it is too early to talk policy. let's not politicize this incident."

there. see how stupid that sounds?

agreed.  it's politics 101.  both parties are the problem and not the solution.  until someone reaches out and sits down and finds some middle ground terrorists will continue to be allowed in this country and gun violence will continue to be a problem (along with many many other problems in this great country).

there isn't any middle anymore. its over.

rather than trump trying to offer condolences to the families and try to heal the country, what does he do? he blames SCHUMER for this and wants to keep muslims out. that is why nothing will ever get done.

I don't like trump at all but let's be fair: it was one tweet amongst many.  
He did say things (i'm only going on twitter) like:

We mourn the horrifying terrorist attack in NYC. All of America is praying and grieving for the families who lost their precious loved ones.

My thoughts, condolences and prayers to the victims and families of the New York City terrorist attack. God and your country are with you!

We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough!

Thank you to the GREAT NYPD, First Responders and all govt officials for having handled the terrible West Side attack so professionally!

and I'm guessing a lot of you don't agree, but he has had suggestions to stop more terrorist attacks like:
I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!

We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter).

CHAIN MIGRATION must end now! Some people come in, and they bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil. NOT ACCEPTABLE!

I can't believe you're defending this crap. Did you watch his statement? He's nothing but a xenophobes racist hiding behind patriotism. This kind of rhetoric was already called out 14 years ago under Bush, but people still believe the "extreme vetting" and travel ban suggestions are solutions. And then when those don't work, which they won't, it will be time to start the war machine. 

mcgruff10

tbergs said:

Support terrorism, hmm you mean like the US has for years? You do understand we created most of the terrorism and have domestic terrorism of our own to go with it.

You'll never be able to create any policy or immigration law that stops terrorists from entering this country. Blanket and obscure statements about extreme vetting and tightening borders are bullshit. If you can't see that, then you are part of the flock.

I don't think I am a part of the flock but I do believe that tightening our borders and extreme vetting is a good idea moving forward.

mcgruff10

gimmesometruth27 said:

if those "rights" are up for debate and potentially amended, so is the 2nd amendment.

why is the 2nd amendment always tied into every argument? lol

I had no clue trump had bot followers though it makes sense.  I follow him just to see what he says.

mcgruff10

just saw this:

The man accused of plowing into people on a lower Manhattan bike path Tuesday allegedly was inspired by ISIS videos he watched on his cellphone, according to the criminal complaint against him.

"He did this in the name of ISIS, and along with the other items recovered at the scene was some notes that further indicate that," John Miller, deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism of the NYPD, said this morning of the attack that killed eight. "He appears to have followed almost exactly to a 'T' the instructions that ISIS has put out in its social media channels before with instructions to their followers on how to carry out such an attack."

The suspect was charged Wednesday with providing support to ISIS and violence and destruction of motor vehicles.

tbergs

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

Support terrorism, hmm you mean like the US has for years? You do understand we created most of the terrorism and have domestic terrorism of our own to go with it.

You'll never be able to create any policy or immigration law that stops terrorists from entering this country. Blanket and obscure statements about extreme vetting and tightening borders are bullshit. If you can't see that, then you are part of the flock.

I don't think I am a part of the flock but I do believe that tightening our borders and extreme vetting is a good idea moving forward.

Ok, what does that mean to you? Tightening borders = wall? Extreme vetting = bans? I'm sorry, but I see you and others talk about gun policy not changing the mass shootings and gun violence and your unwillingness to implement firearms possession standards, yet the above makes sense for the handful of terrorist attacks that happen every few years? I just can't even begin to understand that thinking. This is part of the reason we're a target by other countries and extremists. We're completely ignorant on how to solve our own problems, but then dictate to other countries on what to do.

How do we make the process more extreme when it's already this:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

mcgruff10

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

Support terrorism, hmm you mean like the US has for years? You do understand we created most of the terrorism and have domestic terrorism of our own to go with it.

You'll never be able to create any policy or immigration law that stops terrorists from entering this country. Blanket and obscure statements about extreme vetting and tightening borders are bullshit. If you can't see that, then you are part of the flock.

I don't think I am a part of the flock but I do believe that tightening our borders and extreme vetting is a good idea moving forward.

Ok, what does that mean to you? Tightening borders = wall? Extreme vetting = bans? I'm sorry, but I see you and others talk about gun policy not changing the mass shootings and gun violence and your unwillingness to implement firearms possession standards, yet the above makes sense for the handful of terrorist attacks that happen every few years? I just can't even begin to understand that thinking. This is part of the reason we're a target by other countries and extremists. We're completely ignorant on how to solve our own problems, but then dictate to other countries on what to do.

How do we make the process more extreme when it's already this:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

I'm not sure how being pro 2nd amendment and anti-terrorism goes hand and hand.  But anyway,  I'm not for a wall but I do think that we need to stop immigration from certain countries.  To me I think of a bag of a 1000 skittles.  Turns out three of the skittles are laced with poison; do you dip your hand into the bag?

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

Support terrorism, hmm you mean like the US has for years? You do understand we created most of the terrorism and have domestic terrorism of our own to go with it.

You'll never be able to create any policy or immigration law that stops terrorists from entering this country. Blanket and obscure statements about extreme vetting and tightening borders are bullshit. If you can't see that, then you are part of the flock.

I don't think I am a part of the flock but I do believe that tightening our borders and extreme vetting is a good idea moving forward.

Ok, what does that mean to you? Tightening borders = wall? Extreme vetting = bans? I'm sorry, but I see you and others talk about gun policy not changing the mass shootings and gun violence and your unwillingness to implement firearms possession standards, yet the above makes sense for the handful of terrorist attacks that happen every few years? I just can't even begin to understand that thinking. This is part of the reason we're a target by other countries and extremists. We're completely ignorant on how to solve our own problems, but then dictate to other countries on what to do.

How do we make the process more extreme when it's already this:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

I'm not sure how being pro 2nd amendment and anti-terrorism goes hand and hand.  But anyway,  I'm not for a wall but I do think that we need to stop immigration from certain countries.  To me I think of a bag of a 1000 skittles.  Turns out three of the skittles are laced with poison; do you dip your hand into the bag?

Which countries? Name the “certain” countries. Please help me understand the joke.

riley540

The gun issue and terrorist issue are different. There’s millions of good gun owners and no good terrorists 

Halifax2TheMax

There’s a billion + “good” Muslims. But you wouldn’t know it.

tbergs

riley540 said:

The gun issue and terrorist issue are different. There’s millions of good gun owners and no good terrorists 

Ok, last I checked the legal gun owner didn't admit to being a homicidal maniac before they killed and the foreign immigrant didn't openly disclose they were actually a terrorist.

You want extreme vetting and travel bans for "terrorists", but defend the ability for a domestic terrorist to intermingle with the law abiding "good guys" because it's a constitutional right up until it isn't.

We can pick out terrorists as well as we can pick out homicidal gun owners, but you are only pushing for extremes on the one group, why? My point is that it's extreme hypocrisy, but it's being justified because they're terrorists. Why, because they're Muslim? 

tbergs

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

Support terrorism, hmm you mean like the US has for years? You do understand we created most of the terrorism and have domestic terrorism of our own to go with it.

You'll never be able to create any policy or immigration law that stops terrorists from entering this country. Blanket and obscure statements about extreme vetting and tightening borders are bullshit. If you can't see that, then you are part of the flock.

I don't think I am a part of the flock but I do believe that tightening our borders and extreme vetting is a good idea moving forward.

Ok, what does that mean to you? Tightening borders = wall? Extreme vetting = bans? I'm sorry, but I see you and others talk about gun policy not changing the mass shootings and gun violence and your unwillingness to implement firearms possession standards, yet the above makes sense for the handful of terrorist attacks that happen every few years? I just can't even begin to understand that thinking. This is part of the reason we're a target by other countries and extremists. We're completely ignorant on how to solve our own problems, but then dictate to other countries on what to do.

How do we make the process more extreme when it's already this:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

I'm not sure how being pro 2nd amendment and anti-terrorism goes hand and hand.  But anyway,  I'm not for a wall but I do think that we need to stop immigration from certain countries.  To me I think of a bag of a 1000 skittles.  Turns out three of the skittles are laced with poison; do you dip your hand into the bag?

Take you're Skittles analogy and apply it to gun owners. It's the same thing. Yet, I don't see you pushing for extremes on that topic. Why?

gimmesometruth27

mcgruff10 said:

just saw this:

The man accused of plowing into people on a lower Manhattan bike path Tuesday allegedly was inspired by ISIS videos he watched on his cellphone, according to the criminal complaint against him.

"He did this in the name of ISIS, and along with the other items recovered at the scene was some notes that further indicate that," John Miller, deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism of the NYPD, said this morning of the attack that killed eight. "He appears to have followed almost exactly to a 'T' the instructions that ISIS has put out in its social media channels before with instructions to their followers on how to carry out such an attack."

The suspect was charged Wednesday with providing support to ISIS and violence and destruction of motor vehicles.

should also be charged with terrorism and several counts of murder and attempted murder. homey is going away for the rest of his life.

gimmesometruth27

as an aside, don't most criminals convert to islam while in jail? what do muslims convert to in jail?

Halifax2TheMax

gimmesometruth27 said:

as an aside, don't most criminals convert to islam while in jail? what do muslims convert to in jail?

Christianity silly, doh!

gimmesometruth27

mcgruff10 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if those "rights" are up for debate and potentially amended, so is the 2nd amendment.

why is the 2nd amendment always tied into every argument? lol

I had no clue trump had bot followers though it makes sense.  I follow him just to see what he says.

2nd amendment comes up because it is a comparison. gun rights supporters will never talk about any kind of tinkering with the 2nd amendment the same way people like me will never agree to alter any of the rights in the bill of rights.

riley540

tbergs said:

riley540 said:

The gun issue and terrorist issue are different. There’s millions of good gun owners and no good terrorists 

Ok, last I checked the legal gun owner didn't admit to being a homicidal maniac before they killed and the foreign immigrant didn't openly disclose they were actually a terrorist.

You want extreme vetting and travel bans for "terrorists", but defend the ability for a domestic terrorist to intermingle with the law abiding "good guys" because it's a constitutional right up until it isn't.

We can pick out terrorists as well as we can pick out homicidal gun owners, but you are only pushing for extremes on the one group, why? My point is that it's extreme hypocrisy, but it's being justified because they're terrorists. Why, because they're Muslim? 

You assumed a lot of things with no evidence. I haven’t stayed my opinion of border security. I’m simply drawing a line to why people react differently to different situations. 

riley540

Radicals Islam is a problem. Gun violence is a problem. This isn’t news to anybody. 

bootlegger10

As cold as this sounds, I think the news should report the story like it was a tragic car accident and move on.  Police arrested the guy.  Case closed.  Don't give the terrorists a reason to do this again (i.e., mass hysteria).   6,767 other people died on the same day in the US (based on 2008 average data).  Don't go to war over this.  Don't hate Muslims over this.  Report the story and move on.