President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

You have the option.

And will continue to have the option.

 

That's very pro-choice of you.

 

Gotta stay vigilant.

 

I heartily agree with points 3 and 4.

On points 1 and 2...

*If part of the power of the Stoneman kids' testimony is authenticity, I think authenticity gets diminished when an op-ed reads like it has been...imbued...with the "systemic failure" worldview that tends to mark modern liberal political thought.

*I don't know if a NYT editor did shape it - I actually kind of doubt it - but I hope it was shaped in a way that made it sound more like a kid.

*In its own way, the whole #WalkUpNotOut argument was pretty clever, because its anti-bullying message speaks to kids' desire to get along and be harmonious. State legislatures and school districts have been pursuing anti-bullying measures for years on end. What makes the op-ed...interesting...is the certitude with which a senior in high school, based on her interactions with Cruz, is willing to forcefully argue against those kinds of prescriptives, instead choosing to embrace a systemic model for identifying and then separating kids with mental illness and specializing their treatment at "another institution." Here's a kid arguing for a system that stigmatizes mental illness for the sake of arguing against an argument against walk-out movements.

Like I said, it's pretty sophisticated. It's a fully-formed refutation, in real time.

 

There must be something darker, more sinister about Chicago (and even Baltimore) that makes this so. Some very fine people likely have the answer.

 

The biggest problem in the "in worked in that country" argument is that it assumes that the cultures of the nations are similar. We make the same mistake over and over in our interventions all over the globe. We assume everyone deep down is "like us" and/or wants to be like us. With catastrophic results.

I have zero problem with TRYING anything. I'm just not very optimistic about the likely outcome.

Upon the first mass shooting after whatever new laws are passed will come two arguments:

Right: "See? The new laws had no effect. They don't work."
Left: "We need even tougher laws!"

 

It is funny that you would say that because I have always thought the same thing when I see pro-life rallies and people have their little kids with them and those posters of aborted babies.

 

An OpEd editor there would/might have cleaned it up to the extent they take out some of the rhetorical throat clearing and hemming and hawing.

Or referred the piece back to the author for a day or two to find help in doing those things.

Also, Mary Shelley wrote 'Frankenstein' when she was 19. SE Hinton published 'The Outsiders' when she was 18.

Some kids can write.

 

I was using QYFW's wording., Take it up with him.

 

It was the high school version of a domestic disturbance. I feel sorry that people don't know this because it is an issue all to itself, aside from the gun. It was a boyfriend/girlfriend issue that sometimes ends up with one of them -mostly the female of course-dead. I have heard mention that the owner of the gun should have some charges because he did not store it safely...and that is a whole other issue too.

 

“We shouldn’t pass laws because criminals will just break them anyway!” is perhaps the dumbest talking point in modern American history.