Do Americans take Trump seriously?

@alexpari1,

alexpari1 wrote:

And if you say that Berlusconi is the same...you are wrong. He was not the head of the most powerful country on earth and his only interest was only pu$$y (can't blame him as a human, but can as a politician). What do you think?

Funny you should mention it. I was considering starting a thread a few weeks ago to say that electing Trump would be our Berlusconi moment, and you are selling Berlusconi short. It wasn't just the cavorting with underage prostitutes and the "bunga bunga" parties. He was an uncouth jackass in many ways how Trump is.

Sure, it would be a monumental difference in scale if it happened to the US and would be a national shame just like Berlusconi is to Italy, but to anwer your question a sizable minority take Trump seriously and the rest of us do not. The minority is sizable enough that he's the likely Republican nominee but not enough that he is likely to win, although this kind of fluke nutjob is hard to predict and it may well be very close.

But he's not going away if he loses. He represents a mounting anger with American politicians in general and the poltical system and unless the economy picks up faster it is not going away for a while.

0 Replies

@Lilkanyon,

You're fooling yourself. Dems want to take away our guns. They are just not quite prepared to go so far in announcing their intentions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I would consider suicide, should he win, except that I'm both a scaredy cat and occasionally politically aggressive;

This makes me even more (I was already) aware of what Germany (and many other places) went through.

I tend to think of Trunp as a fool any sane person would avoid. Apparently not.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You're fooling yourself. Dems want to take away our guns. They are just not quite prepared to go so far in announcing their intentions.

I get it, the slippery slope. What about compromise then? The background checks? Do YOU want an unstable neighbor having an arsenal in his home while your kids play in the backyard?

2 Replies

@Lilkanyon,

Not a slippery slope, reality. Obviously I don't want a loon with an arsenal living next to me, but none of the proposed measures to prevent such a thing will do so. I really don't want the government to have the power to decide who is and who isn't a loon.

2 Replies

@Lilkanyon,

Lets not forget, the majority of gun owners have never shot a live animal for food in their lives. They kill cans and show off to their friends how "deadly" they are. Tbh? I could care less about YOUR rights as a gun owner. I respect HUNTERS! Or those hired to hunt.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Not a slippery slope, reality. Obviously I don't want a loon with an arsenal living next to me, but none of the proposed measures to prevent such a thing will do so. I really don't want the government to have the power to decide who is and who isn't a loon.

Then who is qualified? I dont see the NRA stepping up to protect society. So who then?

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I would consider suicide, should he win, except that I'm both a scaredy cat and occasionally politically aggressive;

This makes me even more (I was already) aware of what Germany (and many other places) went through.

I tend to think of Trunp as a fool any sane person would avoid. Apparently not.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever made in this forum. If you had the guts you would kill yourself because Trump became president? Of course you wouldn't so dial back the hyperbole.

You are comparing him to Hitler. And that is also ridiculous.

He will most likely be a horrible president, but he will be incapable of becoming an American dictator.

2 Replies

Been said before I'm sure. Key ingredient in Trump's success:

Very few take Trump seriously, but many are so disgusted with both major parties that Trump's earnest BS sounds preferable to the insincere rhetoric from the rest. They got no one but themselves to blame for the Trump phenomenon.

0 Replies

@Lilkanyon,

There are some things which society can't be protected from. If you expect the government to protect you from hurricanes and earthquakes you are foolish.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Some people are loony to the degree that they pose a threat to society and are often committed against their will. Who else but the government should have this power to decide? It's not perfect but I don't have a problem with the goverment having laws that are interpreted by courts that govern declarations of mental fitness for things like driving, having guns or even sometimes whether they should be committed.

If guns were just as regulated as cars there would be an enormous reduction in their use in crime (according to some studies up to 90% if we just do background checks and a few other things that don't go beyond regulating them to the same degree as cars) and homicide and that would take a lot of the argument for gun prohibition away.

I think gun rights activists see gun regulation as a slippery slope but I think they have it backwards, if they were to agree to just regulating guns to about the same degree we do with cars that would almost eliminate the argument to prohibit them.

It won't happen anytime soon, but this is what I recommend for the US:

1) To purchase or carry a gun (including purchasing ammunition) you would need a license, the test for the gun license is just a background check (gun safety like driving safety would be a great idea but not as important as just the background checks).

2) Guns are registered, like vehicles.

That's all. Guns are less useful than vehicles and we all put up with regulation of owning and operating a vehicle (much more regulation on the operating side, there are no fines for handling a gun irresponsibly).

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I don't have a problem with sensible regulations, but unlike you, I don't trust the government to stick to them.

I don't have a problem with courts deciding who is or isn't loony because due process is involved. I certainly don't want some dweeb in a governmental agency cubicle making that decision.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There are some things which society can't be protected from. If you expect the government to protect you from hurricanes and earthquakes you are foolish.

You compare a man made gun weilded by a human a natural catastrophy? Whos koolaid are you drinking?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't have a problem with sensible regulations, but unlike you, I don't trust the government to stick to them.

The people vs the government is a never ending tug of war. But we shouldn't thorugh out sensible regulations just because of that, we should tug toward that and if things go astray tug again.

Quote:

I don't have a problem with courts deciding who is or isn't loony because due process is involved. I certainly don't want some dweeb in a governmental agency cubicle making that decision.

I imagine it should work like this:

A background check is a simple criminal background check (just do it more efficiently nationwide) and unless you are legally declared mentally unfit (through courts, like in many other cases) you are also in the clear.

Straightforward to me. I think gun rights activists should adopt this position instead of absolutism but that's just me. I get that their instinct is to merely oppose the other side as diametrically as possible and that many have some kind of objection to even the regulation I propose.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I already knew, for decades, what germans of varied lives went through, and have read more lately.

No. I'm not comparing him to hitler. That is your own fantasia.

I will admit that if he somehow wins, that I will revert to despair. Probably not for long, given impeachment, a totally concreted congress, and a variety of overseeing government departments,fooling with chaos.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't have a problem with sensible regulations, but unlike you, I don't trust the government to stick to them.

I don't have a problem with courts deciding who is or isn't loony because due process is involved. I certainly don't want some dweeb in a governmental agency cubicle making that decision.

And also I can say too, right now, the GOP controlled congress will not approve certain nominees to certain govt agencies, which keeps them headless...which in turn, they can say are useless because they are ineffective. And they continually remove funds from other agencies that are watchdogs for corruption, ect...then claim, yet again they are ineffective. Its like sucking blood from a turnip.

I remember the first Bengazi hearings with Clinton. And she stated she was denied the 300k she asked for for extra security in Libya. That was white washed over. Now, idk if that statement was true, but considering the GOP and their "conservative" stance, they seem to think they can get a job as a CEO while wearing walmart clothes.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I already knew, for decades, what germans of varied lives went through, and have read more lately.

No. I'm not comparing him to hitler. That is your own fantasia. I just have read a great deal of what the Germans went though, pro or con, because of a guy I think of as a tuna, in place at just the right circumstances. Not that I didn't already know.

I will admit that if Trump somehow wins, that I will revert to despair. Probably not for long, given impeachment, a totally concreted congress, and a variety of overseeing government departments dealing with chaos. I'm not all so downcast, sanity may prevail.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Some people are loony to the degree that they pose a threat to society and are often committed against their will. Who else but the government should have this power to decide? It's not perfect but I don't have a problem with the goverment having laws that are interpreted by courts that govern declarations of mental fitness for things like driving, having guns or even sometimes whether they should be committed.

If guns were just as regulated as cars there would be an enormous reduction in their use in crime (according to some studies up to 90% if we just do background checks and a few other things that don't go beyond regulating them to the same degree as cars) and homicide and that would take a lot of the argument for gun prohibition away.

I think gun rights activists see gun regulation as a slippery slope but I think they have it backwards, if they were to agree to just regulating guns to about the same degree we do with cars that would almost eliminate the argument to prohibit them.

It won't happen anytime soon, but this is what I recommend for the US:

1) To purchase or carry a gun (including purchasing ammunition) you would need a license, the test for the gun license is just a background check (gun safety like driving safety would be a great idea but not as important as just the background checks).

2) Guns are registered, like vehicles.

That's all. Guns are less useful than vehicles and we all put up with regulation of owning and operating a vehicle (much more regulation on the operating side, there are no fines for handling a gun irresponsibly).

Sensible and realistic. I concur.

1 Reply

@Lilkanyon,

Australia passed some of the strictest gun regulation laws and they have had little mass shootings in years. I know the argument is,...then only criminals buying from black markets have them. How many shootings of people in white america (thats all you care about right?) happen from illegal black market guns?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Your definition of conservatives is childish

I didn't exactly say they are "childish". I said they are angry and crazy. But then I suppose that the word "childish" fits too.

3 Replies

Do Americans take Trump seriously?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know