Trump

[ShockCrazy]

Is it possible to love your child even if they: cheated on a school test? Lied on a resume? Cheated on a spouse? Were found guilty of shop-lifting? Committed suicide? Charged with murder?

Are people allowed to make mistakes? Can you rehabilitate a criminal? To borrow a conservative phrase, “Can you love the sinner, but hate the sin?” Does the end ever justify the means?

I ask these questions, not because it justifies or invalidates anything Trump did (real or allegedly), but because it is an important question to your argument. If a single disagreeable act is all that is required to banish someone forever, then you are right that we should all be ashamed for not punching Donald Trump in the mouth. If some acts can be forgiven/rectified, then it is up to the individual to determine when enough is enough. If it is the latter in which you agree, then please stop feigning outrage and discuss ideas in reality.

Hang on, let's not act like Trump has done just one thing wrong. He has a loooong history of being a shitstain with no attempts or interest in rectifying those things. He's 71, he's not changing now. From discrimination at his apartments, to the Central Park 5, to "Grab em by the *****", to allegations of sexual harassment, to cheating on his wife with a porn star, to talking trash on a gold star family, to shaming a former POW, to a fraudulent exploitative college, he is what he is and he is unequivocally a despicable human being. I can get supporting the right's platform(however misguided I believe it to be at this time), I DO NOT get hanging your hat on Trump to do it and choosing him to be your representative. He's an abhorrent person, and excusing his behavior because he's enacting policy you want is shameful. Take a look of the things I listed above again, just think about all those things, how many of them would have you outraged if the guy was on the other team? And I know I forgot a buuuunch more.

[ShockCrazy]

The fact the forum had to edit something our president has said on camera astounds me. This isn't something some young dumb kid said either. This was a 58 year old grown man talking about sexual assault like it's a joke.

[Kung Wu]

He wasn't talking about sexual assault.

[ShockCrazy]

Never said he was. He was presenting an argument that a single act wasn't worthy of permanent condemnation, which I agree with that premise. I'm pointing out that argument has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.

[JJClamdip]

.

[wufan]

Hang on, let's not act like Trump has done just one thing wrong. He has a loooong history of being a shitstain with no attempts or interest in rectifying those things. He's 71, he's not changing now. From discrimination at his apartments, to the Central Park 5, to "Grab em by the *****", to allegations of sexual harassment, to cheating on his wife with a porn star, to talking trash on a gold star family, to shaming a former POW, to a fraudulent exploitative college, he is what he is and he is unequivocally a despicable human being. I can get supporting the right's platform(however misguided I believe it to be at this time), I DO NOT get hanging your hat on Trump to do it and choosing him to be your representative. He's an abhorrent person, and excusing his behavior because he's enacting policy you want is shameful. Take a look of the things I listed above again, just think about all those things, how many of them would have you outraged if the guy was on the other team? And I know I forgot a buuuunch more.

Totally agree with your take. Trump has demonstrated in the past (to varying degrees) that he’s not a good person. I didn’t mean to insinuate that he only did one thing. Instead, what I was suggesting was that everyone has a tolerance level that they will accept, and when that line is crossed, they are through. Continuing to support an individual that has done wrong does not mean that you condone the wrongs. @CBB-Fan was suggesting that if your line hasn’t been crossed, then you support those prior transgressions. This just isn’t true. I used some rather simple examples to demonstrate that disapproval on one (or several) act does not necessitate that you abandon the agent that perpetrated the indiscretion.

I would suggest that no one excuse his abhorant behavior. It should be criticized. One thing I get caught up in is that contextually, it’s not always clear what his motives are when he says certain things. They certainly sound “odd” (nicest way I can put it) but the fact that leftists get all triggered about it makes me wonder what their motives are as much as Trump’s. I find that it’s rarely a debate worth engaging in because I disagree with the leftists and I have no idea what the hell Trump is trying to say. I can’t pick a side and defend it. Instead, I generally stick with discussing Trump’s policy, which I support 80% of the time or so. In those cases I understand my end of the argument, and that’s at least a starting point.

[jdshock]

Lol, "I never said give guns to teachers. I said give guns to 1 in 5 teachers."

[Kung Wu]

But he literally didn't say that.

he literally just said it in this tweet. "20% of teachers, a lot"

[Kung Wu]

Now, we're getting somewhere. What else did he literally say?

[pinstripers]

20 years ago I went to Mexico City. The taxi drove me past a big building that said "BANCO." There were 3 guys in civilian clothes walking back and forth in front of the building. Each was carrying a long gun on a sling. One looked like an M-16, one looked like a pump shotgun. I asked the cabbie, "Jeeze, y'all have a lot of bank robberies down here?" He looked back at me and grinned, "not any more." he answered.

[wufan]

Lol, "I never said give guns to teachers. I said give guns to 1 in 5 teachers."

Trump said, 20% of trained teachers should be armed. Good idea or bad idea? Better ideas?

[wufan]

Bad idea: let’s let five 17 year olds that have just been part of a horrible tragedy dictate policy.

[wufan]

Idea: waiting limit on firearms purchase. This would not have prevented this specific situation (if the waiting limit was reasonable), but is it reasonable that his might prevent a future shooting? Should we move forward with it?

My thought is no, we shouldn’t do this. I don’t believe it solves anything, but I would be willing to listen to proposals.

[jdshock]

Bad idea: let’s let five 17 year olds that have just been part of a horrible tragedy dictate policy.

What does it mean to "dictate" policy? If sharing your opinion is dictating policy, I disagree whole heartedly. Everyone has the right to share their opinion, and we can choose to listen if the ideas are good. This is how these events transpire. If an undocumented alien kills someone, Fox is going to get their family on to talk about why we need stronger border protection. If a mother who had an abortion has changed her mind, some conservative radio station is going to have her on to talk about why we need to change abortion laws.

There are absolutely pieces of information that the survivors are uniquely able to speak to. For example, if one of the survivors says "I was in my math class, and the teacher was as panicked as we were" it might inform certain opinions on arming teachers. Or if the survivor says the opposite: "my teacher was cool, calm and collected. The police didn't get there for 10 minutes, but I totally trust that she could've taken out the bad guys." I don't know that they're saying either of these things, but they'd be insightful, even if they're just one off anecdotes.

When the conversation is about broader policy decisions, it's not like we're electing the kids to office. Why not let them say their opinion? Reasonable adults can take it or leave it. 17 is old enough to be interested in a particular subject and to be able to share interesting perspectives.

[jdshock]

Trump said, 20% of trained teachers should be armed. Good idea or bad idea? Better ideas?

Who does Trump think are our elementary school teachers? Does he think we have a bunch of veterans teaching first graders? What does specially trained mean?

I tend not to agree with the idea that more guns in schools are the answer, but let's assume that is the way to go. There are only two possibilities: (1) we're under training the teachers who will be handling guns; or (2) we spend so much money training them that they become fully qualified to be both a police officer and a teacher, which is obviously not ideal. And the Florida case in particular involved a deputy who never even entered the building. That's someone who we, as a society, have trusted to handle weapons and enforce our laws. It's obviously a difficult and dangerous situation when there's an active shooter. I think if we truly think more guns is the answer, we need more police officers and security guards in schools. Again, not really the direction I'd propose going.

I did think this tweet was a darkly funny take on the current education system in the United States:

[pinstripers]

It all depends if you want to protect children or if you want to limit/eliminate guns. If the AR-15 were to magically vanish from the face of the earth, there would still be a school shooting in March.

[ShockBand]

I'm a teacher at the high school level.

• I can put a bullet on a target with a 9 mm.
• Would I be able to train enough (and in the right way beyond just target practice) to be able to maintain my wits and focus in an actual firefight? How often would I have to train in that way to stay sharp?
• If I'm able to get past that, would I actually be able to handle the situation correctly in the fog of a real firefight? I don't think one would know until they actually experienced it. Maybe I would perform well, maybe I would freeze and piss myself.
• If I'm able to get past that, and engage a shooter, who is likely a student (and possibly a minor under 18 in the eyes of the law) and maybe one I know or have even taught, could I pull the trigger and try and kill someone who is not a nameless stranger? What if I kill or injure an innocent person, through error on my part or unintentionally?
• If I'm able to get past that, and fire, and thinking about where I might likely be in my building, what are the chances law enforcement (who most likely will not know me) would encounter me at the time I was firing perhaps in an active firefight? Would I get a "drop your weapon" command first, or would law enforcement fire without warning?
• If I get past that, and live, how much counseling am I going to need?

BTW, our district employs the run-hide-fight system, and we do have SROs (police officers) in our building. Run-hide-fight means I as the teacher am empowered to make decisions on how to best keep my students safe. Trust me, I have thought too many times about as many "what if" situations as I can think of - where to take cover in my room (my door has floor to ceiling windows next to it like many schools are built), how I can try and take a peek outside to see if we have time to flee, what the best escape routes are, what can me and my students carry to shield or defend ourselves, etc.

As with most problems, the potential solutions are full of entangled and messy pros and cons.

[jdshock]

This is a genuine question:

If we're talking about a voluntary, opt-in, type system where only willing teachers would be armed (i.e., no one is forced to bring a gun to school). What percentage of teachers do you think would be less hesitant than you are?

My instinct would be that the vast majority of teachers would either be (a) wholly opposed to ever carrying a weapon at school, or (b) at least on the fence and concerned about the possible dangers. It just seems to me that most schools would never get to 20% of teachers voluntarily carrying weapons. But, as someone who is comfortable with firearms and who works in a school, I'm interested in getting your feedback.

[ShockBand]

So many variables. I'm an average (OK overweight/portly) guy. There are young men here at my school that are physically strong enough to overtake me, if they wanted. Though a weapon would be concealed, it wouldn't be difficult for a student to guess who would be likely to be carrying. Is that teacher now a target? And concealing could be tricky, because being concealed in public you aren't normally walking around in close proximity to others all the time, stooping over to look at a paper or computer screen, maybe taking a seat next to a student, maybe taking a knee next to a student. And if you have to dress a certain way (a blazer perhaps) in order to conceal, does the way you are dressed make you identifiable?

I get the hero mentality. I would like to think I would be the brave last line of defense for any of my students. But real life isn't a movie where the hero always evades the bullets and maintains his wits. I honestly don't know how I would do. The only extreme high stress situations I've ever been in where I had to try and breathe deeply, remain calm, and think, were an early morning fire in an apartment building I lived in (waking up to someone screaming fire is something I will never forget) and when the 1999 tornado was rolling through my neighborhood I lived in at that time in Wichita and it got very very close to my house.

On an opt-in system it would vary greatly I would think, depending upon where. My guess is you would see a higher percentage in rural areas (more familiarity with having guns around, potentially longer response times from law enforcement) that in suburban and urban areas, but even that would also vary greatly state by state. I also wonder about liability insurance for someone who would carry as well. Could you even get it? If so, how expensive would it be?

If the federal government wants to help by funding putting SROs or retired military in schools as armed guards, I'm totally on board with that. Hell, lets spend 25 billion on that instead of the damn wall. Our SROs have told me that from their spot in the building, they can be anywhere inside the building in 90 seconds or less. They could be to my hallway in 15-20 seconds. They come to school fully uniformed and outfitted as any police officer would normally. And I am grateful we have them here. We have two, our middle schools have one each. Our elementary schools are the soft spot, they don't have SROs. I wish they did. Plus, a good SRO goes beyond being just an armed guard. They establish a rapport with kids, help them understand the role of the police in our society, and can be someone kids can talk to or report things to. I think our SROs even have a physical message box as well as online ways of reporting things. Yes, I want us as a nation to consider and discuss how to best defend ourselves when things do reach the nightmare scenario, but we also need to work harder at all the things we need to do better to keep it from even getting to that point. The breakdown doesn't happen when someone brings weapons into a school and starts shooting, the breakdown was likely a long series of things happening well before the tragedy strikes.

To solve it, we have to stop talking and screaming at and past one another, and engage in actual dialogue. This includes trying to understand the other side's rationale, even if you don't agree with it. And we have to stop the tribalism that has been so fervent, and makes everything a binary decision. And we need to do more listening. Many want to talk and write, few want to seriously listen and read and reflect before responding.

[pinstripers]

My daughter is a principal. When all this began, she took classes and bought a pistol. I never discussed guns with her, I never took her shooting or hunting. Her thought was, "if somebody comes in, trying to kill me and my kids, I wanna be able to fight back."

[ShockBand]

My daughter is a principal. When all this began, she took classes and bought a pistol. I never discussed guns with her, I never took her shooting or hunting. Her thought was, "if somebody comes in, trying to kill me and my kids, I wanna be able to fight back."

I'm curious, did her classes include simulations on when and when not to shoot based on surroundings? I did the simulator at Gander Mountain once, and holy hell the split second decision making is tough.

[wufan]

What does it mean to "dictate" policy? If sharing your opinion is dictating policy, I disagree whole heartedly. Everyone has the right to share their opinion, and we can choose to listen if the ideas are good. This is how these events transpire. If an undocumented alien kills someone, Fox is going to get their family on to talk about why we need stronger border protection. If a mother who had an abortion has changed her mind, some conservative radio station is going to have her on to talk about why we need to change abortion laws.

There are absolutely pieces of information that the survivors are uniquely able to speak to. For example, if one of the survivors says "I was in my math class, and the teacher was as panicked as we were" it might inform certain opinions on arming teachers. Or if the survivor says the opposite: "my teacher was cool, calm and collected. The police didn't get there for 10 minutes, but I totally trust that she could've taken out the bad guys." I don't know that they're saying either of these things, but they'd be insightful, even if they're just one off anecdotes.

When the conversation is about broader policy decisions, it's not like we're electing the kids to office. Why not let them say their opinion? Reasonable adults can take it or leave it. 17 is old enough to be interested in a particular subject and to be able to share interesting perspectives.

You are correct that they absolutely have the right to profess their opinion on the subject. My snarky comment did not convey that I too hold this value. I do not believe that their opinion holds more or less sway on the matter based on their victim status.