Trump thanks LGBT community, promises to fight

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just now, Kayla said:

Why should we only focus on the large events and pretend the smaller ones don't matter as much? A hundred people each killing 10 civilians and ten people each killing 100 civilians both result in 1,000 deaths - so why only point our finger at one side of that equation? 

You said "homegrown terrorists are extremely rare," and that statement is incorrect. They are MORE common than eastern-grown terrorists, they just are involved in the "smaller" acts of terror. 

Had you said "homegrown terrorists don't kill on as large of a scale," you'd be correct, but that's not what you said. 

I'm more likely to be bombed walking into Planned Parenthood for a pap smear than I am when I walk past my middle-eastern neighbors- that's a fact. 

They matter less because the FBI counts gang violence as terrorism. It happens so commonly it doesn't even make the news. Think critically before you quote me please. 

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

When will you guys realize that you need to stop feeding the Trump trolls? They aren't going to change their minds  Unfortunately.

[Kayla 7,595]

3 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

They matter less because the FBI counts gang violence as terrorism. It happens so commonly it doesn't even make the news. Think critically before you quote me please. 

Isn't it also problematic to view it as lesser because it's "gang violence," though? The fact is people are being murdered in a way that labels the incident as "terrorism." Gun violence also happens so commonly it doesn't make the news- aren't we up to 1,000 shootings in the last 1,200 days or something? Being smaller incidents does not make it a smaller issue when there are so many of them.

It's like the whole "no single raindrop feels responsible for the flood." Each terrorist incident matters, and if we can't keep a lid on the people living under our noses how can we expect to handle people with outside influences and resources? And why do we keep only labeling them as "terrorists" when our own citizens are just as much to blame for a slew of other terrorists attacks conducted on our soil? 

It seems more like an effort to target a specific type of person, if you know what I mean, than a real effort to put a stop to violence when you view it as Muslim Extremists vs. Homegrown Extremists. They're all terrorists, but for some reason some people only care about targeting one side of the equation.

[MJHolland 12,725]

2 minutes ago, Kayla said:

Isn't it also problematic to view it as lesser because it's "gang violence," though? The fact is people are being murdered in a way that labels the incident as "terrorism." Gun violence also happens so commonly it doesn't make the news- aren't we up to 1,000 shootings in the last 1,200 days or something? Being smaller incidents does not make it a smaller issue when there are so many of them.

It's like the whole "no single raindrop feels responsible for the flood." Each terrorist incident matters, and if we can't keep a lid on the people living under our noses how can we expect to handle people with outside influences and resources? And why do we keep only labeling them as "terrorists" when our own citizens are just as much to blame for a slew of other terrorists attacks conducted on our soil? 

It seems more like an effort to target a specific type of person, if you know what I mean, than a real effort to put a stop to violence when you view it as Muslim Extremists vs. Homegrown Extremists. They're all terrorists, but for some reason some people only care about targeting one side of the equation.

It's because we can't stop crime in our inner cities. Gangs have their own politics and when they use violence like they're taught to do, that's technically terrorism yes.

But do you not see them as two totally different beasts? Like c'mon, I don't think you're being honest in your logic. They're incomparable but you're using those numbers anyway as "evidence".

We will never get guns off the streets of our poor inner cities. How do you think they got there? We have high schoolers and middle schoolers killing each other over basketball sneakers. Cold murder. Do you think a background check is going to stop them from finding a gun anyway??? The only thing restricting it to only cops having guns is going to do is make sure that single mother in the inner city won't have a handgun to protect herself because she can't stop her son from joining a gang. 

Gangs in inner cities aren't extremists, they've just been failed by liberal economic policies and cast out to live a life of poverty and crime.

[LaLuna 12,732]

Not him using this horrible tragedy to gain more voters...

You piece of opportunistic sh*t 

The worst part is, I see of lot of gay people saying that they're actually voting for him now. Some people are so easily brainwashed... 

[Kayla 7,595]

Just now, MJHolland said:

It's because we can't stop crime in our inner cities. Gangs have their own politics and when they use violence like they're taught to do, that's technically terrorism yes.

But do you not see them as two totally different beasts? Like c'mon, I don't think you're being honest in your logic. They're incomparable but you're using those numbers anyway as "evidence".

We will never get guns off the streets of our poor inner cities. How do you think they got there? We have high schoolers and middle schoolers killing each other over basketball sneakers. Cold murder. Do you think a background check is going to stop them from finding a gun anyway??? The only thing restricting it to only cops having guns is going to do is make sure that single mother in the inner city won't have a handgun to protect herself because she can't stop her son from joining a gang. 

Gangs in inner cities aren't extremists, they've just been failed by liberal economic policies and cast out to live a life of poverty and crime.

How is it failed liberal economic policies that cast them out to live a life of poverty in crime when it's historically been racism that caused them to be denied housing loans, thus forcing them into poorer areas of the cities where there are less opportunities and people resort to other methods to get by? How is it failed liberal policies when conservatives are often the ones who want to cut educational, health, and other programs that help people in need? These people are at a loss because of how they're mistreated by those who view them as lesser, and the people who view them as lesser aren't the liberals. 

And I don't approve of the "well they'll find a gun anyways so making laws to prevent that won't matter!" because you can say that about LITERALLY any crime. Theft is illegal even though people still find ways to break into our homes. Rape is still illegal even though it clearly still happens. The fact that making something illegal doesn't stop it 100% isn't a reason to not support regulations. 

Yes- violence will always happen, people will always somehow have access to guns. It's about making it HARDER for them to do those things, it's about putting our money where our mouth is when we say we need funding for "mental health" whenever something like this happens.

Funny how conservatives blame "mental health" for so many tragedies, but when it comes time to actually give people health care or promote mental health issues they're the ones voting "NO."

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 minutes ago, Kayla said:

How is it failed liberal economic policies that cast them out to live a life of poverty in crime when it's historically been racism that caused them to be denied housing loans, thus forcing them into poorer areas of the cities where there are less opportunities and people resort to other methods to get by? How is it failed liberal policies when conservatives are often the ones who want to cut educational, health, and other programs that help people in need? These people are at a loss because of how they're mistreated by those who view them as lesser, and the people who view them as lesser aren't the liberals. 

And I don't approve of the "well they'll find a gun anyways so making laws to prevent that won't matter!" because you can say that about LITERALLY any crime. Theft is illegal even though people still find ways to break into our homes. Rape is still illegal even though it clearly still happens. The fact that making something illegal doesn't stop it 100% isn't a reason to not support regulations. 

Yes- violence will always happen, people will always somehow have access to guns. It's about making it HARDER for them to do those things, it's about putting our money where our mouth is when we say we need funding for "mental health" whenever something like this happens.

Funny how conservatives blame "mental health" for so many tragedies, but when it comes time to actually give people health care or promote mental health issues they're the ones voting "NO."

If this passage is true, why wouldn't a ban of high-risk areas from US immigration make sense?

Criminals are the ones that commit crimes with guns. What makes you think ANY of them wouldn't commit another crime to GET a gun to commit the crime?

[Kayla 7,595]

13 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

If this passage is true, why wouldn't a ban of high-risk areas from US immigration make sense?

Criminals are the ones that commit crimes with guns. What makes you think ANY of them wouldn't commit another crime to GET a gun to commit the crime?

Because banning all people from a specific area is wrong, in my eyes. That's like saying someone can't move into your neighborhood from Compton because there's so much gang violence in Compton, and you don't wanna risk bringing it into your neighborhood. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Kayla said:

How is it failed liberal economic policies that cast them out to live a life of poverty in crime when it's historically been racism that caused them to be denied housing loans, thus forcing them into poorer areas of the cities where there are less opportunities and people resort to other methods to get by? How is it failed liberal policies when conservatives are often the ones who want to cut educational, health, and other programs that help people in need? These people are at a loss because of how they're mistreated by those who view them as lesser, and the people who view them as lesser aren't the liberals. 

And I don't approve of the "well they'll find a gun anyways so making laws to prevent that won't matter!" because you can say that about LITERALLY any crime. Theft is illegal even though people still find ways to break into our homes. Rape is still illegal even though it clearly still happens. The fact that making something illegal doesn't stop it 100% isn't a reason to not support regulations. 

Yes- violence will always happen, people will always somehow have access to guns. It's about making it HARDER for them to do those things, it's about putting our money where our mouth is when we say we need funding for "mental health" whenever something like this happens.

Funny how conservatives blame "mental health" for so many tragedies, but when it comes time to actually give people health care or promote mental health issues they're the ones voting "NO."

Say it louder for everyone in the back This whole debate/argument aside, It's absolutely inFURIATING that people do not understand this and use just the fact that gang violence exists, poverty in black and latinx neighborhoods, ghettos, etc. as justification of looking down on entire races; calling them lazy, saying they want "handouts", etc. 

 

[thefamebitch 834]

2 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Fixed it for you 

... Oh wait no sorry, we're not supposed to apply the same logic to guns anymore in 2016 lolololol 

Completely irrelevant to this situation. Nice job avoiding the content at hand, just like Trump 

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

I seriously cannot take him... if he becomes president I'm moving to Canada. I'm already putting in jobs and thinking about schools. I feel so done about America sometimes. I want to pull a Tina Turner and Madonna and move on. I have family and friends here, but come on with me.

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, bombshell2nite said:

Because he just gained a buttload of support after the attack. Saw it for myself.

From the LGBT community? I doubt that it will turn out that way once the election gets here. 

It was a strange thing to say, as he made this tragedy about himself...but that was expected, since he always finds a way to do that. That's what Narcicisst do. 

[LibraOctober98 3,505]

[Hexxx 2,244]

11 hours ago, Johnikan said:

Ya'll ever consider Trump was hired by the Clinton campaign to be as ridiculous and extreme as possible to make the entire Republican party seem like a joke, therefore securing Clinton into office? 

Don't scare me

[Miley 5,006]