Trump V Obama Response to mass shootings

[Krissy Cakes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHrvODeA8-E#action=share

 

[NewCreation435]

This just highlights to me how insensitive our current President is and how poor his leadership really is. It's sad

 

[Josiah]

Obama campaigned in part on gun control....

For his first TWO YEARS in office, both houses of congress were solidly in his pocket. And he did NOTHING. And the Democratic Congress did NOTHING. Not a single bill was introduced, not a single policy was recommended, NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. I think that speaks loudly as to how important Obama and the Democrats think gun control is.

 

[NewCreation435]

Obama campaigned in part on gun control....

For his first TWO YEARS in office, both houses of congress were solidly in his pocket. And he did NOTHING. And the Democratic Congress did NOTHING. Not a single bill was introduced, not a single policy was recommended, NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. I think that speaks loudly as to how important Obama and the Democrats think gun control is.

it should also be remembered that when he took off we were in a recession and headed towards a depression and action had to be taken first and foremost on the economy

 

[tango]

Obama campaigned in part on gun control....

For his first TWO YEARS in office, both houses of congress were solidly in his pocket. And he did NOTHING. And the Democratic Congress did NOTHING. Not a single bill was introduced, not a single policy was recommended, NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. I think that speaks loudly as to how important Obama and the Democrats think gun control is.

I know a guy who is the president of a gun club in the US and he was of the opinion that during Obama's 8 years in office the push for more gun control took a step back, if anything.

I can't help wondering if part of the issue is the question of government overreach, and the simple fact that certain moves that might theoretically be made would cause the people to realise the government was overreaching and push back, possibly very hard.

One example here would be the issue of things like gold. A few have described gold as little more than a "relic", a number of people own some form of gold-based investments and the people who insist on holding their own gold, in physical form, are generally derided as "gold bugs" who are often regarded as being somewhat detached from reality. Any talk of keeping physical gold at home, refusing even the relative safety of a box at thhe bank, is widely regarded as a sign of little more than paranoia. However, if the government were ever to move to take physical gold away from the people (as in the 1930s) it would suddenly demonstrate that those previously regarded as paranoid gold-bugs were actually onto something, and the chances of people resisting the government would rise accordingly.

Likewise if the government were to try and confiscate guns, whether by executive order or by a full-blown Congressional nullification of the 2nd Amendment, would that not also generate huge alarm among the people? Many have no desire to ever own a gun, and many more would like to see guns removed from the hands of citizens. But I suspect many more would be afraid that if the government were to remove the provisions of the 2nd Amendment there would be little to stop other rights from also being cancelled. If a government would overturn the 2nd Amendment, what would stop it from also overturning the recognition of the right to free speech, or the right to due process, or the right to refuse to self-incriminate?

One other issue where guns are concerned is that the very aspects of firearms that make them well suited for home defense are the same aspects that make them dangerous when misused. The functionality that provides the ability to repel multiple invaders also provides the ability to harm multiple targets when the weapon is used for offense rather then defense. The two are inextricably linked and the only way to even attempt to remove the opportunity to harm multiple targets in an offensive scenario is to similarly remove the ability to harm multiple targets in a defensive scenario.

The fundamental question has to be whether the majority of firearm use against human targets, at least by those who lawfully own their firearms, takes place in an offensive or defensive scenario.

A related issue to the call to ban firearms is the question of how far the "ban it" push will go. In the UK after a school shooting the government responded by banning firearms. In due course criminals took to using knives, so the law on carrying knives became progressively stricter. All the time the assumption is that if something might be used to harm someone it needs to be banned from being carried in public. And the results are much as one might expect - to the kind of street thug that people hope they never encounter having a charge of possessing an offensive weapon added to their rap sheet is more or less equivalent to a parking ticket, while to the average law-abiding professional such a charge would almost certainly be career-ending. And along the way the street thugs figured they could own aggressive dogs to attack, even to intimidate, other people - those other people having been totally disarmed by the law and therefore rendered unable to do anything to protect themselves if a dog were to turn nasty.

Having physically punched a dog in the UK in the past to make it clear that its repeated jumping up at me was not welcome (needless to say the owner was disinterested in the situation) and on another occasion having physically dragged a dog by its collar to stop it jumping up at me, I am thankful in the US that I am free to carry a knife much more dangerous than anything the UK law permits. At least in the US if I am attacked by a dog I have a sporting chance to defend myself. In the UK my option is little more than to hope it doesn't hurt too much, as I fight back with little more than fists and feet.

 

[Stravinsk]

Imagine if Trump had actually known and told the truth:

This is a screen shot I did on a google search just a few minutes ago, making the time parameter (tools for google page) on the search options between Feb 1, 2018, and Feb 13, 2018 - all dates before the supposed incident which is said to occur Feb 14, 2018:

Careful attention to the dates that precede each relevant link. They show when a google bot found it and created a summary of that link at that time.




Turn off the garbage news. This is simple proof that this incident didn't happen, as there is simply no way for news outlets to be reporting it on dates before the actual incident.

You are being manipulated and lied to for an agenda.

 

[Albion]

it should also be remembered that when he took off we were in a recession and headed towards a depression and action had to be taken first and foremost on the economy

Which he also failed at, resulting in him earning the dubious distinction of having overseen the longest recession in American history while increasing the national debt by more than all the preceding presidents combined.

 

[psalms 91]

If Trumps plans are ok'ed I think he will hold the distinction of increasing the debt even more.

 

[Albion]

That wouldn't be much of a "distinction." I think Coolidge was the last president not to have had an increase in the debt, but of course no one can hold a candle to Obama when it comes to increases. In any case, the treasury has already begun taking in more revenue as a result of the growth of the economy that's resulted from Trump's reforms, so the spending increases demanded by the Democrats probably will be completely offset anyway.

 

[tango]

Imagine if Trump had actually known and told the truth:

This is a screen shot I did on a google search just a few minutes ago, making the time parameter (tools for google page) on the search options between Feb 1, 2018, and Feb 13, 2018 - all dates before the supposed incident which is said to occur Feb 14, 2018:

(image removed for brevity)

Careful attention to the dates that precede each relevant link. They show when a google bot found it and created a summary of that link at that time.




Turn off the garbage news. This is simple proof that this incident didn't happen, as there is simply no way for news outlets to be reporting it on dates before the actual incident.

You are being manipulated and lied to for an agenda.

I'm not sure that this proves the event didn't happen at all. Taking your graphic at face value it seems to suggest more that the event was known in advance, rather than it not happening at all.

 

[tango]

If Trumps plans are ok'ed I think he will hold the distinction of increasing the debt even more.

Anyone who doesn't return to a budget that generates a surplus will increase the debt - many people don't understand the difference between a budget deficit and a debt. Even if the deficit is reduced to zero the debt doesn't go away.

I can't imagine politicians on either side being willing to make the kind of spending cuts or impose the tax increases it would take to cut the deficit to zero and create a surplus, with a view to actually repaying the debt.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm not sure that this proves the event didn't happen at all. Taking your graphic at face value it seems to suggest more that the event was known in advance, rather than it not happening at all.

Actually, it does. It's not *simply* foreknowledge. The only way such specifics could be known in advance would be to get the information, somewhere along the line, from someone who was planning the event. There may be elements that are true, but mixed with falsehoods - so that the overall story is a falsehood.

You don't have to take my screenshot at face value. Do a search yourself.

All that being said, in many areas, google searches that are done within it's own time parameters are pretty accurate for most things. For example, I searched a username I used on another website and the results were consistent with when I joined, and when I left - even though the date parameters I set the search for were many years wider. The search only returned results for the years I was actually active at that website, with no wrong dates.

But google results for "Nikolas Cruz" "Florida Shooting" (as of the date of this post, anyway) can be found from over a decade ago. For example, you can set the search from 2001-2010 and you'll get results as far back as 2002.

I cross checked a few specific dates on archives for certain sites - like news sites. They don't show stories that are reflected in the links google provides for those dates.

That leaves me with the simple conclusion that google has purposely scrambled the dates to hide the fact that the story was almost certainly leaked before the date it supposedly happened, and google is in on it, just like google is in on the censoring of Youtube (as it owns Youtube), just like Google promotes results on it's search index that are consistent with it's corporate masters.

Top results for "florida shooting" - cnn, cbs,theguardian,buzzfeed, nbc, bbc etc (then also based on the ip of the search, so you'll get your local news from wherever you are)
Top results for "Florida shooting" "false flag" - similar content providers.

Not a whole lot different if you plug in those search terms into Youtube.

If one wants anything like independent analysis of a current hot news event, you basically can't rely on Google or any services it owns like youtube. That was different in the past and may be different in the future, but as of now that's the reality.

 

[tango]

Actually, it does. It's not *simply* foreknowledge. The only way such specifics could be known in advance would be to get the information, somewhere along the line, from someone who was planning the event. There may be elements that are true, but mixed with falsehoods - so that the overall story is a falsehood.

It's possible we're saying the same thing with different words, such that meanings are confused.

When you say "this incident didn't happen" the way I read that is that nobody went into the school, nobody fired bullets at anybody, and therefore there is no event to discuss at all. From your Google image the conclusion I would say is supported is that the event did happen but it was known in advance rather than coming as a total shock to everyone.

You don't have to take my screenshot at face value. Do a search yourself.

Google on my tablet doesn't let me specify a date range more than "in the last week" or "in the last month". I tried using those options and ended up with so many hits that were dated the 14th or later it was useless.

But google results for "Nikolas Cruz" "Florida Shooting" (as of the date of this post, anyway) can be found from over a decade ago. For example, you can set the search from 2001-2010 and you'll get results as far back as 2002.

I cross checked a few specific dates on archives for certain sites - like news sites. They don't show stories that are reflected in the links google provides for those dates.

That leaves me with the simple conclusion that google has purposely scrambled the dates to hide the fact that the story was almost certainly leaked before the date it supposedly happened, and google is in on it, just like google is in on the censoring of Youtube (as it owns Youtube), just like Google promotes results on it's search index that are consistent with it's corporate masters.

Top results for "florida shooting" - cnn, cbs,theguardian,buzzfeed, nbc, bbc etc (then also based on the ip of the search, so you'll get your local news from wherever you are)
Top results for "Florida shooting" "false flag" - similar content providers.

Not a whole lot different if you plug in those search terms into Youtube.

If one wants anything like independent analysis of a current hot news event, you basically can't rely on Google or any services it owns like youtube. That was different in the past and may be different in the future, but as of now that's the reality.

It does seem pretty standard that the media is pushing a tidal wave of garbage with the apparent intent to do anything but inform. I still remember a commentary I read that was written by someone who worked in a place (I think a hotel or a gym or similar) that had lots of TVs, and said he was used to seeing CNN on one screen and Fox News on an adjacent screen and wondering whether they were describing the same world at all.

So much these days seems to be little more than tubthumping and rabble rousing. Which would be comical, were it not for the fact the rabble is usually roused by it all.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

This is a screen shot I did on a google search just a few minutes ago, making the time parameter (tools for google page) on the search options between Feb 1, 2018, and Feb 13, 2018 - all dates before the supposed incident which is said to occur Feb 14, 2018:

Careful attention to the dates that precede each relevant link. They show when a google bot found it and created a summary of that link at that time.

That's not how the dating of web pages works by Google's database. Its not found by a bot and time-stamped. It just catalogues dates by finding the date on the page that it thinks is the date of the article. Sometimes it finds another date on the page such as another entry or an advertisement and uses that date mistakingly.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

That's not how the dating of web pages works by Google's database. Its not found by a bot and time-stamped. It just catalogues dates by finding the date on the page that it thinks is the date of the article. Sometimes it finds another date on the page such as another entry or an advertisement and uses that date mistakingly.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Actually, how I described it is exactly how it works. Most of the articles (the contents thereof, not the date of the indexed results) you can see actually are dated either the 14th or 15th of Feb, 2018. You can see that in my screenshot in the summaries. If your position were correct, the date that starts the summary given on the indexed search would reflect that. But they don't. I'm sorry, you are mistaken.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

If your position were correct, the date that starts the summary given on the indexed search would reflect that.

That's incorrect. Inaccuracy in Google's "search by date" function is a well known problem. Some businesses rely on that data and have long been peeved by its unreliability. You can find this phenomenon for just about any topic. For example i looked up my phone model, Pixel 2 XL and found indexed results for pages about the phone inaccurately dated from spring of 2007 (see photo). That's before even the iphone was announced. Yet there is no Pixel 2 XL conspiracy necessary to explain the flaw in Google's indexing.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

That's incorrect. Inaccuracy in Google's "search by date" function is a well known problem. Some businesses rely on that data and have long been peeved by its unreliability. You can find this phenomenon for just about any topic. For example i looked up my phone model, Pixel 2 XL and found indexed results for pages about the phone inaccurately dated from spring of 2007 (see photo). That's before even the iphone was announced. Yet there is no Pixel 2 XL conspiracy necessary to explain the flaw in Google's indexing.

"Any topic" including usernames on websites? I have been on the net a long time and have used various usernames on a variety of websites. So far, not one of them tested has given incorrect dates (by year) for posts made to those specific websites. All years searched outside the dates active give 0 results, and only the dates I was active yield positive results - correctly dated by general time (the time when the post was found by a Google bot).

If what you say is true some of the names I have used are likely to yield false dates when both limiting the search by date, name and specific website, but none do.

If Google's date feature were inherently flawed for nearly all subjects as you seem to insinuate, it would be practically useless. I assert that it is mostly accurate, except in certain scenarios where (for whatever reason) the dates are scrambled.

 

[Virgil the Socialist]

I have been on the net a long time and have used various usernames on a variety of websites. So far, not one of them tested has given incorrect dates (by year) for posts made to those specific websites. All years searched outside the dates active give 0 results, and only the dates I was active yield positive results - correctly dated by general time (the time when the post was found by a Google bot).

If what you say is true some of the names I have used are likely to yield false dates when both limiting the search by date, name and specific website, but none do.

Too small of scale. Errors in code or mistakes in interpreting dates is undoubtedly more common when talking about thousands or millions of items indexed over many different types of web platforms. A relatively small number of results about a single individual just within the reliable date structure of message board software i wouldn't expect to show flaws.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Stravinsk]

Too small of scale. Errors in code or mistakes in interpreting dates is undoubtedly more common when talking about thousands or millions of items indexed over many different types of web platforms. A relatively small number of results about a single individual just within the reliable date structure of message board software i wouldn't expect to show flaws.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The amount of usernames/identities I have used on the net far exceeds the search parameters given in the example I used, and all tested thus far prove reliable. However, in the following example, I only included 3 specific search terms, none limited by website but only by date and can get results as far back as 2002. Here, try it yourself:

https://encrypted.google.com/search...=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2001,cd_max:12/31/2010&tbm=

Google purposely scrambled the dates. Anyone searching their usernames on websites can confirm the dates those usernames were active are accurate (unless some request for scrambling was submitted and accepted) and that this specific incident given no particular website, but a specific name (Nikolas Cruz) and event "Florida shooting" along with the specific number 17 indicating those that supposed to have died can verify the dates are all over the place.

 

[Josiah]

I don't personally know that this is true..... it's just heresay.... but I've been told (by more than one) that anyone with access to the internet can purchase gun parts and have them mailed to one's home. Then there are instructions on how to assembly them on the 'net. And there is NOTHING any government can do that prevents this... by anyone (including children who can use a credit card) anywhere. IF this is true (and I don't claim that it is, I don't know) then gun laws are pretty irrelevant.

It reminds me of something I read years ago: That the atheist, communist government of China HAD to give up any attempt to restrict religion, HAD to give up prohibitions of reading the Bible, HAD to give up distribution of Christian literature because they couldn't restrict the internet... and it's all there.