New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Bold Admission

trapdoor

Governor
All violent crimes instill terror. But the beltway snipers were proven to be terrorists in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the unanimous ruling of the jurors:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/us/virginia-justices-set-death-sentence-in-washington-sniper-case.html
The prosecutors made use of anti-terrorism laws to get a sentence they wanted. Doesn't make the killers terrorists, no matter what law they were convicted under. Under U.S. law there are two overlapping definitions of terrorism, one for terrorism and one for international terrorism. They are:

[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.[60]

Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:

(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended —
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum".[61]
You'll note that both definitions require a political motive. The stated political motive of one of the D.C. snipers was based on a delusion -- it wasn't a real political motive but it opened the door for the prosecutors to use it as a claim.

Sure. There was the LAX shooting, in 2002,
Not a terrorist.
the 2006 UNC SUV attack, the 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting,
Lone nutcases don't count.

the 2008 terrorist attack on a Universalist Church, which left two dead and injured six, etc.
See next above.

The 2006 Capitol Hill Massacre was also, arguably, a terrorist attack, since a note indicated the mass shooting was motivated by wanting to end the sexual licentiousness of ravers.
See next above.

Of course, a key conservative talking point during the Bush years is that he had prevented any terrorist attacks after 9/11. So, conservatives conveniently developed a kind of instant amnesia, where even terrorist attacks that had commanded obsessive public attention for weeks, like the Beltway Snipers and Anthrax attacks, were flushed down the memory hole in the interests of preserving the talking point.
Which is because he did, when it comes to the sort of planned and organized terrorist attack exemplified by 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the Cole attack, etc. No president, no matter how vigilant, can protect against the lone radicalized nutjob, regardless of political or religious orientation.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The prosecutors made use of anti-terrorism laws to get a sentence they wanted. Doesn't make the killers terrorists, no matter what law they were convicted under. Under U.S. law there are two overlapping definitions of terrorism, one for terrorism and one for international terrorism. They are:

[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.[60]

Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:

(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended —
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum".[61]
You'll note that both definitions require a political motive. The stated political motive of one of the D.C. snipers was based on a delusion -- it wasn't a real political motive but it opened the door for the prosecutors to use it as a claim.


Not a terrorist.


Lone nutcases don't count.



See next above.



See next above.



Which is because he did, when it comes to the sort of planned and organized terrorist attack exemplified by 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the Cole attack, etc. No president, no matter how vigilant, can protect against the lone radicalized nutjob, regardless of political or religious orientation.
So what planned and coordinated attack on US soil occurred while Obama was president that meets your definition?

Boston bombing? Nope. Just a couple of lone nutcases.
Orlando Nightclub...no, lone nutcase.
Santa Barbara....two nutcases.
FT. Hood...lone nutcase.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
If you could, as you did, blame the entire poor performance of Obama's eight years in office to GWB, I guess you can blame the first WTC on GHWB, if it makes you feel better.
We disagree on "poor performance". I think if Obama had been handed the same economic conditions that Bush or Trump had and turned it into the shit that Bush handed over in January of 2009...you'd have a case. Obama's policies stabilized the mess that he was handed and put us on a trajectory that now Trump is claiming credit for.

When Trump took office was ISIS still in control of 40% of Iraq? Did they still occupy Kirkuk, Fallujah, Tikrit, Sinjar? Were they still threatening to take Baghdad?

Blaming GHWB for the first WTC attack was simply a question I wanted you to try to make consistent with your view that Clinton was responsible for the second, since the first happened a few weeks after Clinton was sworn in and the second 8 months after Bush became president....Your grudging acceptance that it wasn't Clinton's fault is clear evidence that when it is a democrat your assignment of blame has a different standard.
 

trapdoor

Governor
We disagree on "poor performance". I think if Obama had been handed the same economic conditions that Bush or Trump had and turned it into the shit that Bush handed over in January of 2009...you'd have a case. Obama's policies stabilized the mess that he was handed and put us on a trajectory that now Trump is claiming credit for.

When Trump took office was ISIS still in control of 40% of Iraq? Did they still occupy Kirkuk, Fallujah, Tikrit, Sinjar? Were they still threatening to take Baghdad?

Blaming GHWB for the first WTC attack was simply a question I wanted you to try to make consistent with your view that Clinton was responsible for the second, since the first happened a few weeks after Clinton was sworn in and the second 8 months after Bush became president....Your grudging acceptance that it wasn't Clinton's fault is clear evidence that when it is a democrat your assignment of blame has a different standard.
Nonetheless, people like yourself (and I'm reasonably certain you yourself), blamed the flat economic growth and high unemployment of the Obama years, all eight of them, on Bush. There apparently never was an Obama economy. As for consistency, like I said, if you feel WTC 1 was a GHWB failure, I'm fine with that.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Nonetheless, people like yourself (and I'm reasonably certain you yourself), blamed the flat economic growth and high unemployment of the Obama years, all eight of them, on Bush. There apparently never was an Obama economy. As for consistency, like I said, if you feel WTC 1 was a GHWB failure, I'm fine with that.
Trump inherits a DJIA of what about 18,000, an unemployment rate of about 5%, An LFPR of about 62.7%, a war with ISIS in which they are barely hanging on to half of Mosul and a few desert villages...and suddenly claims he has turned things around...and you, quite the lemming that you are, believe it...

So after a year of his saying that we really had a 30% unemployment rate and that we were losing the war against ISIS and that he was going to make America great again...what has he actually done? Not much. The Iraqi army took the rest of Mosul. ISIS has just about been kicked out of Iraq by using the exact same strategy that Obama had...The DJIA jumped a bit, but not as much from 2009 to 2016...the unemployment rate went from 5% to 4.5% and the LFPR is the same.
 
50%, pay attention.
Are you capable of opening your mouth without snark???
(CNN)Two new polls, taken before President Donald Trump launched airstrikes on Syria Friday night, show that around four in 10 Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of the President's job performance, while 40% approve. Those who strongly disapprove of Trump outnumber those who strongly approve by nearly two to one.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Trump inherits a DJIA of what about 18,000, an unemployment rate of about 5%, An LFPR of about 62.7%, a war with ISIS in which they are barely hanging on to half of Mosul and a few desert villages...and suddenly claims he has turned things around...and you, quite the lemming that you are, believe it...

So after a year of his saying that we really had a 30% unemployment rate and that we were losing the war against ISIS and that he was going to make America great again...what has he actually done? Not much. The Iraqi army took the rest of Mosul. ISIS has just about been kicked out of Iraq by using the exact same strategy that Obama had...The DJIA jumped a bit, but not as much from 2009 to 2016...the unemployment rate went from 5% to 4.5% and the LFPR is the same.
I never said he'd done very much, did I? I was referring to the security failiures of the Clinton administration when we got off on this tangent.
 

Arkady

President
The prosecutors made use of anti-terrorism laws to get a sentence they wanted.
Yep. And to get that sentence, they had to convince a jury of the defendant's peers, unanimously, that every single element of the crime in question had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They also had to get past a judge who could have directed a verdict in the other direction. So, the prosecutors and every single one of those jurors thought it was terrorism, and the judge thought that was a conclusion that reasonable people could come to.

You'll note that both definitions require a political motive.
Yes, and the beltway snipers had a political motive. Again, that issue was litigated, and the defendants had the rules of evidence tilted in their favor, and the legal benefit of the doubt, and still lost.

Which is because he did, when it comes to the sort of planned and organized terrorist attack exemplified by 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the Cole attack, etc. No president, no matter how vigilant, can protect against the lone radicalized nutjob, regardless of political or religious orientation.
Agreed. At best, presidents can alter the rates of such attacks and the death toll when they occur (e.g., by reducing access to the weapons that make such attacks more convenient).
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Are you capable of opening your mouth without snark???
(CNN)Two new polls, taken before President Donald Trump launched airstrikes on Syria Friday night, show that around four in 10 Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 56% of Americans disapprove of the President's job performance, while 40% approve. Those who strongly disapprove of Trump outnumber those who strongly approve by nearly two to one.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_apr16
 
Failure......on every front:

WACO, Tex. — Over the past year, those of us in the anti-Trump camp have churned out billions of words critiquing the president. The point of this work is to expose the harm President Trump is doing, weaken his support and prevent him from doing worse. And by that standard, the anti-Trump movement is a failure.

We have persuaded no one. Trump’s approval rating is around 40 percent, which is basically unchanged from where it’s been all along.

We have not hindered him. Trump has more power than he did a year ago, not less. With more mainstream figures like H. R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson and Gary Cohn gone, the administration is growing more nationalist, not less.

We have not dislodged him. For all the hype, the Mueller investigation looks less and less likely to fundamentally alter the course of the administration.

We have not contained him. Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party is complete. Eighty-nine percent of Republicans now have a positive impression of the man. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 59 percent of Republicans consider themselves more a supporter of Trump than of the Republican Party.

Complete text: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/opinion/trump-republicans.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/opinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront



What to do with this information? My guess would be the Anti=Trumpers will:

1) Deny it.

2) Failing that, ignore it.

3) Proceed unhindered by it with even more of what's failed so spectacularly.


All of which is good news for Donald Trump.

Should be entertaining, no?......:>)

''What difference does it make?''
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
Rasmussen, snicker.
Rasmussen is the poll you shitheads have always clung to. I guess now your favorite poll is any one that ranks Trump with the lowest percentage rating.
You should post the poll taken in the CNN news room. That would probably make you pee down your leg and giggle like a school girl.
Wait, you're not a school girl, are you?
 

trapdoor

Governor
So what planned and coordinated attack on US soil occurred while Obama was president that meets your definition?

Boston bombing? Nope. Just a couple of lone nutcases.
Orlando Nightclub...no, lone nutcase.
Santa Barbara....two nutcases.
FT. Hood...lone nutcase.
I didn't claim any had happened on Obama's watch. He did have attacks by radicalized individuals, as you describe, but there's little or nothing the president can do directly about that. I think the Army should have picked up on Hassan (Fort Hood), but that problem was the chain of command, not the president. His own CO should have seen it coming.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Yep. And to get that sentence, they had to convince a jury of the defendant's peers, unanimously, that every single element of the crime in question had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They also had to get past a judge who could have directed a verdict in the other direction. So, the prosecutors and every single one of those jurors thought it was terrorism, and the judge thought that was a conclusion that reasonable people could come to.
What was the required political motivation? The jury was going to give the proseuctor his sentence regardless, so we can ignore that. I want to know how we distinguish, outside the courtroom, that this guy was a terrorist?

Yes, and the beltway snipers had a political motive. Again, that issue was litigated, and the defendants had the rules of evidence tilted in their favor, and the legal benefit of the doubt, and still lost.
What was this motive?


Agreed. At best, presidents can alter the rates of such attacks and the death toll when they occur (e.g., by reducing access to the weapons that make such attacks more convenient).
Blather.
 

Arkady

President
What was the required political motivation? The jury was going to give the proseuctor his sentence regardless, so we can ignore that.
The motive was jihad against the United States, according to Malvo's own writings. He wanted to extort money from the US in order to fund camps to train terrorists. Now, understandably, you want to ignore that, since it conflicts with a well-established conservative talking point, and whenever a choice has to be made between real-world facts and right-wing rhetoric, real-world facts don't have a chance. When real events and conservative rhetoric face-off, real events become mere "blather."
 

trapdoor

Governor
The motive was jihad against the United States, according to Malvo's own writings. He wanted to extort money from the US in order to fund camps to train terrorists. Now, understandably, you want to ignore that, since it conflicts with a well-established conservative talking point, and whenever a choice has to be made between real-world facts and right-wing rhetoric, real-world facts don't have a chance. When real events and conservative rhetoric face-off, real events become mere "blather."
You mean "rantings" not "writings." Malvo is virtually the definition of a nut job. The court played along by allowing the prosecutors to press charges on someone is is a terrorist in name only.
 

Arkady

President
You mean "rantings" not "writings." Malvo is virtually the definition of a nut job. The court played along by allowing the prosecutors to press charges on someone is is a terrorist in name only.
The 9/11 terrorists committed suicide and mass murder with the idea that somehow this would help the cause of getting the US out of the Middle East. Terrorists are virtually all nut jobs.
 
Top