Trump Jr. is Advising His Father to Stand Against Gun Control

[Swordsmyth]

Your logic is the mirror image of the idiots that think Hillary Clinton, then Chelsea Clinton or Michelle Obama should be POTUS.

Anybody trying to sell the narrative that Don Jr should be a legitimate consideration anytime in the future has lost their friggin minds about what this place was established for.

I never said he should be POTUS.

I would need to see his platform and who else was running to decide.

But just because his father is POTUS doesn't mean he shouldn't be.

[dannno]

Not yet.



The difference is that Ron Paul was never President.

So if Rand becomes POTUS, it wouldn't be a "dynastic" thing.

But if any other member of the Trump clan becomes POTUS, it would be.

That is incorrect, technically the Pauls are already a dynasty by definition.

A political family (also referred to as political dynasty) is a family in which several members are involved in politics and businesses, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by blood or marriage; often several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.

[nikcers]

If Ron Paul ended up being President, would you not want Rand Paul to be President at some point in the future if he was the best option?

Political dynasties are often bad, but they don't have to be bad every time.

People just don't normally want to serve the country unless they have ulterior motives. Anyone who is eligable to run for president should be up for debate with criticism for their ideas and merits. You shouldn't say someone shouldn't be able to run because of their name.

[Todd]

If Ron Paul ended up being President, would you not want Rand Paul to be President at some point in the future if he was the best option?

Political dynasties are often bad, but they don't have to be bad every time.

You do know the difference between two people who have a philosophically solid foundations on Liberty and two douche bag billionaires who philosophical foundations are grounded in which type yachts have the most square party footage and at what point you ditch your older wife for a younger one right?

[nikcers]

You do know the difference between two people who have a philosophically solid foundations on Liberty and two douche bag billionaires who philosophical foundations are grounded in which type yachts have the most square party footage and at what point you ditch your older wife for a younger one.

Lots of people get divorced over becoming incompatible. People change over time. You are just as much the product of your experience as you are your genetics.

[Swordsmyth]

You do know the difference between two people who have a philosophically solid foundations on Liberty and two douche bag billionaires who philosophical foundations are grounded in which type yachts have the most square party footage and at what point you ditch your older wife for a younger one.

Tell us, great mind reader, about all the other candidates and their families.

[dannno]

You do know the difference between two people who have a philosophically solid foundations on Liberty and two douche bag billionaires who philosophical foundations are grounded in which type yachts have the most square party footage and at what point you ditch your older wife for a younger one right?

They have different tactics for obtaining more liberty?

[nikcers]

They have different tactics for obtaining more liberty?

Billionaires who make their money in the private sector aren't qualified because they use marketing and sales tactics in order to win the election instead of politicians who use marketing and sales tactics in order to win elections.

[Occam's Banana]

That is incorrect, technically the Pauls are already a dynasty by definition.

It is not incorrect. The context of my remarks, and of all the discussion leading up to them, was that of POTUS "dynasties."

That a family with two or more members in diverse and distinct political offices may also be referred to as a "dynasty" is not relevant to what I said.

[Swordsmyth]

It is not incorrect. The context of my remarks, and of all the discussion leading up to them, was that of POTUS "dynasties."

That a family with two or more members in diverse and distinct political offices may also be referred to as a "dynasty" is not relevant to what I said.

Originally Posted by Todd

Right...cause the Paul's are a political "dynasty". lol..

The context was "political" dynasties.

[Stratovarious]

Trumps 'Platform' blew me away , that's why I supported him 2+ years,
his actions, not so much.

He stood against PC and the Fake Science of Global Warming,
that was big, but only about 2 out of 20.

Not to mention Trump's bootlicking Israel, and chipping away at due process
and the 2nd Amendment.


I'm not all that impressed with platforms today.

[Swordsmyth]

Trumps 'Platform' blew me away , that's why I supported him 2+ years,
his actions, not so much.

He stood against PC and the Fake Science of Global Warming,
that was big, but only about 2 out of 20.

Not to mention Trump's bootlicking Israel, and chipping away at due process
and the 2nd Amendment.


I'm not all that impressed with platforms today.

He's still the best president we have had in generations. (so far)

[nikcers]

He's still the best president we have had in generations. (so far)

Definitely the most entertaining president we have had in generations.

[Occam's Banana]

Ron was in the House and Rand is in the Senate, both ran for POTUS.

And neither won. Hence, no POTUS "dynasty"

Even if Don Jr. ran and won the Trump's wouldn't necessarily be a "Political Dynasty", if other members of the family continued to dedicate their lives to politics like all the Bushes running around then they would be.

The term would still apply.

And there isn't anything particularly damning about political dynasties anyway [...]

I haven't said that there is. I simply pointed out the difference you asked for.

I have no particular objection to "dynasties" in and of themselves.

The problem is that the relatively recent growth of both "real" and "speculative" "dynasties (such as Bush Sr. -> Dubya, Bill -> Hillary, Obama -> Michelle, etc. - and now Trump -> Junior) betokens the increasing irrelevance of ideals and principles in politics (not that those were too much present to begin with - but now even less so ...)

The emergence of such "dynastic" dynamics in American politics is a yet another symptom of the disease of late-stage democracy.

[Stratovarious]

You do know the difference between two people who have a philosophically solid foundations on Liberty and two douche bag billionaires who philosophical foundations are grounded in which type yachts have the most square party footage and at what point you ditch your older wife for a younger one right?

Who are these two 'solid' people you speak of ?

I don't hate Trump for his yachts, I judge is performance by
his actions.

[Stratovarious]

He's still the best president we have had in generations. (so far)

I said that up till about jan of this year, from then on, I'm not impressed, extremely underwhelmed.

[nikcers]

Who are these two 'solid' people you speak of ?

I don't hate Trump for his yachts, I judge is performance by
his actions.

I think he has way too many yachts to be president. That's how I pick the person who I support.

[Occam's Banana]

The context was "political" dynasties.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

[Swordsmyth]

And neither won. Hence, no POTUS "dynasty"

The subject was "political" dynasties not "POTUS" dynasties:

Originally Posted by Todd

Right...cause the Paul's are a political "dynasty". lol..

The term would still apply.

I disagree with any definition that requires only a second member of the family to be in politics.
It's only a coincidence until you have at least a third.

I haven't said that there is. I simply pointed out the difference you asked for.

I have no particular objection to "dynasties" in and of themselves.

The problem is that the relatively recent growth of both "real" and "speculative" "dynasties (such as Bush Sr. -> Dubya, Bill -> Hillary, Obama -> Michelle, etc. - and now Trump -> Junior) betokens the increasing irrelevance of ideals and principles in politics (not that those were too much present to begin with - but now even less so ...)

The emergence of such "dynastic" dynamics in American politics is a yet another symptom of the disease of late-stage democracy.

Dynasties are only a problem if they are divorced from principles, some are and others are not, if the dynasty is tied to principles then it helps you be able to trust that a given politician will actually uphold the family tradition and stick to his principles, Rand automatically gets some credibility because of Rand as an example. (I know that by my definition the Pauls aren't a dynasty yet but they illustrate the point)

[Occam's Banana]

The subject was "political" dynasties not "POTUS" dynasties:

Yes, I have already acknowledged this. But all my remarks have been made in the context of POTUS dynasties.

I disagree with any definition that requires only a second member of the family to be in politics.
It's only a coincidence until you have at least a third.

*shrug* As you will. I don't play dueling dictionaries. Definitional fiat is the prerogative of every discussant.

But regardless of whatever definition you yourself wish to insist upon, a Junior (or other Trump clan) presidency will be called a "Trump dynasty" by pretty much everyone else.

Dynasties are only a problem if they are divorced from principles, some are and others are not, if the dynasty is tied to principles then it helps you be able to trust that a given politician will actually uphold the family tradition and stick to his principles, Rand automatically gets some credibility because of Rand as an example. (I know that by my definition the Pauls aren't a dynasty yet but they illustrate the point)

As I said before, I do not regard "dynasties" as problematic in themselves. The problem is in what their dynamics betoken and illustrate about mass democracy.

(And in any case, as far as I can tell Trump has no particular principles, so I am not seeing what traditional "familial principles" Junior et al. might be "tied to" ...)

[Stratovarious]

I think he has way too many yachts to be president. That's how I pick the person who I support.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump's public mention of background checks is vanishing

[Zippyjuan]

Trump's public mention of background checks is vanishing

The Flip Flopper in Chief is at it again. Backing off previous promises/ statements.

[Swordsmyth]

The Flip Flopper in Chief is at it again. Backing off previous promises/ statements.

And you are so disappointed that it is turning out to be 3D chess and you aren't getting more gun control.

[Zippyjuan]

And you are so disappointed that it is turning out to be 3D chess and you aren't getting more gun control.

[Swordsmyth]

Nice selfie.

[Swordsmyth]

President Donald Trump on Sunday emphasized a need for the country to focus on "a very big mental health problem" in the wake of two mass shootings in one weekend that left 32 people dead earlier this month as he appeared to defend current US gun control measures, stating "we do have a lot of background checks right now.""It's the people that pull the trigger, not the gun that pulls the trigger so we have a very, very big mental health problem and Congress is working on various things and I will be looking at it," Trump told reporters on the tarmac before heading back to Washington after a vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The White House, Trump said, is "very much involved" in the discussions Congress is having to address gun violence and while "a lot of things are happening on the gun level" he said "the concept of mental institutions" must be addressed.

"These are people that have to be in institutions for help, I'm not talking about as a form of a prison, I'm saying for help and I think it's something we have to really look at, the whole concept of mental institutions," he said. "I remember growing up we had mental institutions, then they were closed -- in New York, I'm talking about -- they were, many of them closed. A lot of them were closed and all of those people were put out on the street."
"So I think the concept of mental institutions has to be looked at," he said.

Trump's comments Sunday mark an increased focus from the President on mental health measures over gun control legislation to address gun violence as lawmakers remain skeptical gun control legislation could pass a divided Congress.

More at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/18/polit...rol/index.html

[Swordsmyth]

President Trump called National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre on Tuesday to tell him that universal background checks for gun purchases are off the table, The Atlantic reported.

“He was cementing his stance that we already have background checks and that he’s not waffling on this anymore,” a source told The Atlantic with regard to Trump's phone call with LaPierre on Tuesday. “He doesn’t want to pursue it.”
Trump told LaPierre that he instead wanted to focus on “increasing funding” for mental health care and directing attorneys general across the country to start prosecuting “gun crime” through federal firearms charges from the Justice Department, according to The Atlantic.
LaPierre confirmed Tuesday evening that he had spoken to Trump, though he did not provide details.
"I spoke to the president today. We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies," LaPierre wrote on the NRA's Twitter account. "@realDonaldTrump is a strong #2A President and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms!"

More at: https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...und-checks-are

[Swordsmyth]

President Trump said Tuesday that the United States already has “very strong background checks” for gun purchasers and that officials need to be wary of the prospect of a “slippery slope” where “everything gets taken away.”
Trump’s comments to reporters in the Oval Office provided more evidence that he is backtracking after initially expressing support for enhanced background checks following a pair of mass shootings that killed 31 people earlier this month.

More at: https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...kground-checks