Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[Zanza]

I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.

Trump is not running on a conservative platform.  See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles.  Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.

That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.

I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.

I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.

[Valmy]

I am not even sure it is hypocritical all of the time. It is more trying to use those values to try to generate support among people who do care about those things for their anti-Muslim views.

[garbon]

I am not even sure it is hypocritical all of the time. It is more trying to use those values to try to generate support among people who do care about those things for their anti-Muslim views.

I wouldn't say hypocritical exactly, but yes, certainly deeply cynical.

[garbon]

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump

From HRC looks like he is mostly okay with gay people as long as they don't want marriage.

[katmai]

Trump:  "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."


Idiot.

It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.

Does anybody have an image of what a typical drunk gay bar scene looks like at night.

Yes?

I know, what is you point Phil.

[garbon]

Trump:  "If you had guns in that room, if you had—even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn't have had the same kind of a tragedy."


Idiot.

It was in Florida so I would be surprised if nobody had a gun.

Does anybody have an image of what a typical drunk gay bar scene looks like at night.

Yes?

I know, what is you point Phil.

Maybe he wants a photo?

[celedhring]

I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.

Trump is not running on a conservative platform.  See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles.  Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.

That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.

I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.

I was one of them. I can't say anything specifically about Trump as I don't know his views on gays. I'll take your word for it. But I do stand by my assertion that at least in my own country (but presumably elsewhere as well), right-wingers are hypocritical about their sudden protection of gay or women rights.

In Spain I think they were hypocritical but in the opposite direction. The conservatives needed the religious right, and thus made a huge fuss about gays when they were in the opposition: our now president marched against gay marriage, accused the state telly of pro-gay propaganda (actually I worked in a show that was singled out for it), etc... all the kind of shit you associate with the troglodyte right.
Yet once in power they have let the issue fall to the wayside, to the (very visible) annoyance of the Spanish religious right. Of course in part it was a matter of fait accompli, it's very hard to repeal gay marriage and other equal rights provisions once it's been the law of the land for years, but in the end I think they just don't care. The religious nutters have lost the culture war in this matter and it's not like they won't vote for anybody but the conservatives anyway.

[Malthus]

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump

From HRC looks like he is mostly okay with gay people as long as they don't want marriage.

From here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caitlin-mccarey/trumps-mixed-record-on-ga_b_10343008.html

"The clearest thing about Trump's opinion on gay rights is that no one knows what his opinions are." 

My guess: he, personally, doesn't care for discrimination on this issue - he'd be fine with complete tolerance for gays, but if opposition to same sex marriage is the absolute litmus test for his Republican base - he's fine with that as well.

[The Minsky Moment]

I disagree. Trump, despite running on a conservative platform, mentioned specifically victims being gay and their right to love whom they want and to express themselves how they want.

Trump is not running on a conservative platform.  See all the hand-wringing that's been going on in conservative circles.  Entering into enormous trade wars with half the world is not a conservative position.

That being said it is true that I don't think I've ever heard Trump say anything remotely anti-gay.

I know that. You know that. But there were many people here in this very thread (and elsewhere) who are saying that right wingers are now hypocritically expressing their compassion for gay people. So I wanted to set the record straight.

"Right wingers" here means people like Cruz who are actually right wing and are being hypocritical.
Trump as BB says does not fall into either category. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've obviously never been a comparable situation, but I imagine that even if I had a concealed handgun in a dark club at night, I would still flee and not fight back if someone starts shooting with a semi-automatic rifle and people left and right of me drop dead. Having the psychological strength to pull out a handgun and start a firefight with someone who has already started firing seems pretty daunting. I would imagine that's hard to do even for professionals like law enforcement officers or soldiers.

Eh, there's a fight or flight response. A lot of people have no idea which way they'd go until they're in a situation, and while many seem to go toward flight, a sizable number go into fight mode. To varying degrees of efficacy military training has historically been designed at least in part to try and override this natural response and train a more combat-appropriate one. But throughout history (up to the modern day) even some trained soldiers freeze up in combat.

[Malthus]

In Spain I think they were hypocritical but in the opposite direction. The conservatives needed the religious right, and thus made a huge fuss about gays when they were in the opposition: our now president marched against gay marriage, accused the state telly of pro-gay propaganda (actually I worked in a show that was singled out for it), etc... all the kind of shit you associate with the troglodyte right.
Yet once in power they have let the issue fall to the wayside, to the (very visible) annoyance of the Spanish religious right. Of course in part it was a matter of fait accompli, it's very hard to repeal gay marriage and other equal rights provisions once it's been the law of the land for years, but I think they just don't care. The religious nutters have lost the culture war in this matter.

Much the same happened in Canada. Our right wing party took power, cared not a jot about repealing gay marriage etc. The troglodyte conservatives were pissed, but what were they going to do about it?

[OttoVonBismarck]

That's what I don't get.  Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it.  If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay.  Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria.  Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population.  OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS.  So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.

It all seems backward.

The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.

I'm afraid of America looking like Europe does today in 20 years, and even more afraid for Europe itself 20 years from now. Like I said, "real" terrorists, those who operate with al-Qaeda or ISIS, generally they have easier ways to get into a Western country than going through the refugee program.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The second generation becoming 'radicalized' is certainly a thing that sometimes happens, but do we have any number on it that would justify the word "many"?

And can we judge the parents by the potential worldview of their maybe not even yet living offspring? I think we should judge individuals and not try to make general judgments about groups of people. We have a history of Sippenhaft, i.e. collective guilt, so I am rather wary of it. If we don't think that the parents warrant asylum or fulfill the criteria for other means of immigration that's fine and we should refuse them. But we should not deny anybody based on how his potential offspring might radicalize.

Let's also not focus exclusively on those that dangerously radicalize. Immigration policy is a valid tool of state, and it's up to a state to decide who should come in and who shouldn't (or at least it should be--if you haven't cede that power to an ill-thought out trans-national entity.) The dangerous radicals are the worst of the worst. But there's negatives to having large Muslim immigration even when they do not radicalize. We live in democracies, and while most Western countries have some "baked in" legal protections, the reality is enough voters in any one direction can cause problems. I frankly think long term, on issues like LGBT rights, gender rights, particularly the role of women, and other important issues having a large and rapidly growing population of people who almost universally hate gays, and want homosexuality itself to be criminalized, who view women as chattel and get enraged when women step out of line--is a grave social negative. There are places now where gay men cannot walk down the street without being harassed by gangs of Somali Muslims. There are places now in Britain where Muslim immigrants were caught running a years long child prostitution ring with many of the victims being white Britons. There are places now where women cannot walk alone at night or to metro stations for fear of being gang raped by roving gangs of Muslims.

Every thing I just mentioned is documented on the news. And while America, Britain and Germany didn't first have harassment of gays,  child prostitution and rapes start happening with the arrival of Muslim immigrants, I question why immigration policy (which is a tool of the state) should at all let people in who are likely to worsen this situation.

Again--even the nonviolent ones view women as chattel and hate gay people, think it's okay to kill over drawing cartoons and etc. Large numbers of these people have a deleterious effect on a society, whether they start hurting people physically or not.

[Berkut]

That's what I don't get.  Most of the immigrants/refugees are people who are leaving precisely because of the wackos killing people and the shitty place they are making it.  If the immigrants wanted to kill people and revel in extremism they'd stay.  Much more likely they'd get away with it (or be encouraged to) in Syria.  Of course there will be some violent people who sneak in to the west because of that, but that is not the intent of the bulk of the population.  OTOH people are very upset about western citizens leaving to go to Syria and join groups like ISIS.  So not only do we not desire immigrants who don't want to be violent, we also would rather hold onto those who want to be violent and instead potentially commit violent acts here.

It all seems backward.

The risk of an actual terrorist coming in as a refugee isn't that high. The reason being there are actually in many cases easier ways to get in for someone connected with a terrorist cell. The issue is, we've had a lot of Muslim immigration into Europe for decades, much of it under refugee programs. When they move in and don't assimilate, they have horrible economic outcomes. Then they have a litter of kids, who grow up often even worse off economically. These kids then start watching all the jihadist videos distributed on social media, and they start buying into this stuff.

You say this like there is some actual evidence that

A) This is happening at some great rate in Europe, and
B) That this is happening at some rate at all in the US.

The impression that I get is that this is something of a problem in Europe, but still represents a tiny fraction of immigrants (much less their kids) and is a statistically insignificant phenomenon in the US.

You might as well argue that we should not let Italians in, because of the mafia problem.

Heck, maybe that argument was actually made at some point...

[Jacob]

A list of the victims, including many of the pictures Marty posted earlier, but also with bios of many of them: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/12/481785763/heres-what-we-know-about-the-orlando-shooting-victims