Trump

Introduce yourself, talk about beer, crocs, headlines, dugongs or Paris Hilton.
Post Reply
User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Trump

Post by dannett » Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:29 pm

It's the hypocrisy of the system that is doing my head in. And these donations, come on, that has to end. This is the core of corruption and it is getting played out daily.



Ocean Storm Fishing Tackle
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by ronje » Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:22 am

I don't really care what the yanks get up to as long as they stay "over there". Trump is a buffoon and nothing will change that.

The only nagging thought in my mind is that if Aus's media (especially the ABC) is against him, then he must have some redeeming qualities that I'm not aware of.
Regards
Ronje

User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Trump

Post by dannett » Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:47 am

Matt Flynn wrote:This data mining will be used by all politicians, and business people, a good reason not to use Facebook, or just use it with great care, if that is possible.
As I understand it Trump is alleged to have used a third party organisation to mine user data from 50 million accounts and then seed influential political posts. It was seeded into numerous fake accounts in order for it to "trend" so that the Facebook algorithms would then promote it in users feeds.

Conversely Obama and Hillary have had Facebook say, we will help you win the election. We have given you full access to every users information, you can mine them all. And Facebook will seed influential posts directly into users feeds and messages and we can bypass the trending algorithms so the people see it immediately.

There is a big difference in the two approaches, the first sets out to make a post "popular" and "trend" by fooling the algorithm into thinking that it is popular, this takes time and leaves a degree of chance, users have to keep fuelling the trend, or the promoters have to re-promote it if it loses momentum. It still relies upon individuals actively spreading posts so that people can see the information. By contrast the latter circumvents the algorithms, it is instantaneous, it doesn't matter if users organically build it or not, the information gets deployed to your feed.

Whilst the first method is dishonest, the latter method is down right corrupt. It means that Facebook has effectively become a one sided political proponent without declaring it's intentions. It also brings into question whether they have used their algorithms to slow the growth of stories that do not suit their own political agenda, which has been alleged for some time.

The results of media polls versus election outcomes would suggest that political filtering has been happening. All the polling and trending data suggested that Hillary would have had a land-side victory, but she lost. The same outcomes have repeated themselves in most of the US elections since. How is it that one party could keep trending with such "popularity" on social platforms and keep appearing to be in line with the majority interest and then keep failing to convert into election results?


User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Trump

Post by dannett » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:04 pm

Matt Flynn wrote:Picture is worth 1000 words ... http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... c98be26293
It's not the guns, they are just a tool.
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
http://www.cchrflorida.org/antidepressa ... shootings/
https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/schoo ... stigation/

The other thing that pops up regularly is how the gun laws in place should have stopped most (certainly the last few, excluding Vegas) of the school shootings. In most cases the shooter was known to have traits that should have precluded their ability to own a gun. They either were not followed through by authorities such as in the case of Parkland shooter or they found a way to circumvent the process on the black market.

It's well known that there is no "gun show loophole" in the USA but the myth perpetuates and the authorities do not police it. Go in to a gun show and shut it down, people will follow the rules. That would go a long way to slowing gun crimes.

Anyway, guns are no more the issue than trucks are when used to mow down pedestrians. Guns aren't the root cause, lynching common Joe isn't going to fix the problems.

Dan

User avatar
Matt Flynn
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 14065
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
Location: Somewhat Southerly
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by Matt Flynn » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:52 pm

Don't agree. I read a post by an Aussie bloke who managed a small block of residential units in the USA that had a laundry with coin machines. The local teen thugs were regularly vandalising his machines and taking the money. He couldn't confront them because the kids were carrying pistols, easily obtained in the USA.

Imagine in Darwin/Sydney/Melbourne if the local wannabee teen gangstas could easily get pistols. A ready legal supply means a ready black market supply.

I'd rather have to jump through a few hoops to have my firearms. That way I live in a safer place, knowing my kids can go to school without being shot, knowing I can confront someone in a legit situation without being shot.

Australia seems to have the right balance. Countries like Japan have gone too far. USA is just crazy, as demonstrated by the figures.

I'd love to be able to buy an over the counter .44 magnum Colt Anaconda after a quick background check, but not if it means someone just a little more crazy than me can get one too :D

And don't get me started on pharmaceuticals, that's one of the great travesties of our time, speaking from personal experience, but not from antidepressants, I hardly even drink these days :D :D

User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Trump

Post by dannett » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:07 pm

I don't disagree that America isn't crazy, there is no where else on the planet that has these mass shootings. But when the laws that are in place aren't being used, what good will new laws do? At the very least start enforcing the law.

The FBI knew about the kid, they were tipped off on 45 separate occasions. The kids was on medication, he was under age, he should not have been able to get a gun legally.
A few tightening of the age which you an unaccompanied minor can buy a gun and the types of weapon available would be good. The NRA could step up here and lay a reasonable ground work.

But if the laws aren't upheld or in other cases inexplicable occurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal then what use will come of more regulations?

Policy makers failed the Parkland kids, not guns. Cruz wasn't charged or put on a watch list or disciplined because the district had a policy of upholding low crime figures by non-reporting. Cruz was very much given the opportunity to plan and execute whilst everyone pretended the district was running like a pillar of society. Everyone was too focused on reporting the positives. Growth at all costs again. Policy failed.

Now a heap of people who have been lied to believe that their rights should be taken away from them. It has no bearing on the policy makers, they don't care. Their guys are still armed. Growth at all costs. Surrender your rights. Skim some more off the top. Growth at all costs.


User avatar
Acsle
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Palmerston

Re: Trump

Post by Acsle » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:03 pm

I'm not a Trump supporter but thought I would point a few things out. Everyone was up in arms when Trump was to implement a 'Muslim Ban', with people failing to realise the number of countries that ban Israeli Jews: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates. Economic growth is up by 3% in the US, in comparison to Obama's 1.8% in his last term.

Here’s the list of the 18 countries with the top death rate per million people from mass public shootings from 2009 through 2015:
1.Norway: 1.888
2.Serbia: 0.381
3.France: 0.347
4.Macedonia: 0.337
5.Albania: 0.206
6.Slovakia: 0.185
7.Switzerland: 0.142
8.Finland: 0.132
9.Belgium: 0.128
10.Czech Republic: 0.123
11.United States: 0.089
12.Austria: 0.068
13.The Netherlands: 0. 051
14.Canada: 0.032
15.England: 0.027
16.Germany: 0.023
17.Russia: 0.012
18.Italy: 0.009

There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany's and five times the U.K.'s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher."

The murders from mass shootings in America are horrifying and brutal. But in the wake of another attack, it should be incumbent on all people on all sides not to demagogue the issue.


According to the Crime Prevention Research Center over 98% of mass shootings happen in "gun free zones." Gun ownership does not correlate with a higher homicide rate.

More guns do not equate to a higher homicide rate, despite what the Left purports. In comparison to countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Mexico, the United States has an exceedingly higher number of guns per capita, yet a lower homicide rate. The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. There was a range of 500,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013, according to research from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC. That same year, there were 11,208 firearm homicides and 414,562 nonfatal illegal gun uses, according to the CDC and National Justice Institute, respectively. Even when taking the low end of the defensive gun uses, it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.
Image

User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Trump

Post by dannett » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:29 pm

Acsle wrote:....The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. There was a range of 500,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013, according to research from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC. That same year, there were 11,208 firearm homicides and 414,562 nonfatal illegal gun uses, according to the CDC and National Justice Institute, respectively. Even when taking the low end of the defensive gun uses, it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.
I am not sure if you, or others have heard of Steven Wilford, he was also involved in a US mass shooting involving an AR15. I have linked the story below.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/23254/he ... es-barrett

User avatar
Acsle
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Palmerston

Re: Trump

Post by Acsle » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:36 pm

dannett wrote: I am not sure if you, or others have heard of Steven Wilford, he was also involved in a US mass shooting involving an AR15. I have linked the story below.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/23254/he ... es-barrett
I sure have. I'm glad you follow the daily wire to....
Image

ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by ronje » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:12 pm

it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.

Why do you think that is?
Regards
Ronje

User avatar
Acsle
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Palmerston

Re: Trump

Post by Acsle » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:54 am

ronje wrote:Why do you think that is?
The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. There was a range of 500,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013, according to research from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC. That same year, there were 11,208 firearm homicides and 414,562 nonfatal illegal gun uses, according to the CDC and National Justice Institute, respectively. Even when taking the low end of the defensive gun uses, it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.
Image

User avatar
Acsle
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Palmerston

Re: Trump

Post by Acsle » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:03 am

I will say.....whilst economic growth is at 3%.....These new proposed tariffs aren't going to do his economy anygood in the long run.
Image

User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Trump

Post by dannett » Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:06 am

ronje wrote:it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.

Why do you think that is?
The data comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/ which as the name implies among other things conducts research Disease Control and Prevention. As part of this it compiles statistics for mortality rates for both natural causes (age, heart attacks, disease etc) and other circumstances (motor vehicle accidents, homicides, etc).

The report is available at: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Pri ... e_2013.pdf on page 15 it states:

Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence,
although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996;
Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive
gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by
criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to
more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about
300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
On the
other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only
108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization
Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a
controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per
year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken
from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is
difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically
about defensive gun use.


Here is a link to the CDC Organisation about page.
https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/cio.htm

Post Reply

Return to “Barramundi Banter”