President Trump

I can't wait to have "violent game dealers" at school
on a less sarcastic note, legislation on this will almost definitely not pass, at least, I can't imagine it will. Taking away manchildren's video games will be like taking away real men's guns; it won't happen without a fight

 

I’m not saying that I believe there should be an age limit on many games. Kids will find a way to play them. Even if their parents buy them & let their kids play at home. I’m not going to be hypocritical here. I think the government shouldn’t be too involved in our lives, so for me to say the government should restrict what games I play would be ridiculous. I do think these games cause kids to be more aggressive & lead to kids acting out. And I don’t think an 8 year old should be playing GTA. And I don’t see an issue with Trump meeting with the game designers of these age restricted games to try and help less kids get their hands on them until they’re a bit older or to even try and create new games that are really appealing to younger kids that doesn’t involve so much cussing & blowing people up. Idk, I think we have far more issues to take care of before restricting video games.

 

Study: Video Games Actually Lower Crime

 

this would also get kids exposed to bad American propaganda.

 

@Blue_Marlin @Deinen
I feel like it depends on the genre. Sure, FPS's are pretty violent, but has anyone ever said anything about rougelikes or strategy? X-COM 2 or The Binding of Isaac don't get a lot of comments about violence, but they are pretty violent nonetheless.

Mimicing things like shooting bad guys or whatever is pretty easy with a gun (please forgive me if that soundx offensive.) Assembling teams to fight off aliens, or descending far into your mothers basement to fight horrific creatures? It would take quite a bit of imagination.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 18, 2018, Original Post Date: Mar 18, 2018 ---

You are right. For them to do this, however, they need to make it so video games are not considered art, as they are right now, along with movies, music, and, well, art. If this happens, we will have a VERY large community to help fight back, as I suppose the movie fanatics will help defend us in an attack against video games.

There was an attack just like this a few years ago. You can watch this video about said lawsuit, and it also has the information that lead to my point.

 

Music of all different genres has "caused" people to do violent thing, similarly I would be surprised if only shooting games could cause people to be violent.

 

Interesting study. I see it may be pretty credible because I searched up the jouvenile crime rate and the crime rate for jouveniles has significantly dropped since 2007. However, I dont know if that would be because of the video games. I feel like some really smart gamer guy decided to study it & some how managed to link the two together. But, I could be wrong.

 

Bombing Syria = bad

 

Yep! I’m so mad at Trump right now.

 

We had little choice. We can't allow anyone to outright gas people without some reaction.

 

It may seem sad & you can call me whatever you want but Syria is not our problem. Let some other country take care of them.

 

Ideology aside, America is the world's police. We're the world's police because if we aren't another nation would fill this role which is not advantageous to us.

Being the world's police there are some red lines, one of which is you cannot openly use chemical attacks on your own people. If we had not responded in some form it would encourage every other tinpot dictator to do the same thing, which is never good because the various consequences of that.

This isn't an emotional matter but a logical one. We cannot allow other nations to openly gas their people, it's a non-starter.

For once, I am satisfied on an action Trump took. It was an appropriate, while largely symbolic, move that didn't lead us into escalation of conflict nor did it let them act in this fashion without impunity.

 

I had this conversation last night, America doesn’t “need” to be the worlds police. Donald Trumps message was to “Put America First”, from the looks of it, America hasn’t gotten too yet. Trump had the easiest job in the world & his base only wanted a few things;
1.) Build The Wall
2.) Deport any immigrant who committed a crime (like crossing the border illegally)
3.) Bring back jobs
4) good trade deals
5) withdraw us from any and all pointless wars, bring American troops home to protect America.

The Republican Party is not the party of starting wars, many people think we are. Congressional Republicans favor wars, but we Republicans out here in America do not support pointless wars. Syria is not our problem. Besides that, they still don’t know if Chemical weapons were used & if they were used if Assad was the one to use them.

The message was “Make America Great Again”, not “Make Syria Great Again”.

What do we do IF we take Assad down? What other piece of crap takes his place?

This was not America’s problem.

 

Chemical attack = 40 civilians dead
Increasing US involvement in Syria = thousands of civilians dead

This is an easy choice assuming you have to framework of not wanting civilians to be killed.

 

Yes, you are correct in that we don't need to be. The consequence of this, though, is someone else will take our place. I'd much rather live in American hegemony than that of Chinese hegemony.

As for Trump that is on ya'll. It was clear to most of us he meant nothing he said and said anything he thought would score points. So....your fault I guess.

The GOP IS the party of starting wars, the source? Look at the last several wars? It's pretty evident.

America cannot depose Assad, not without coming into direct conflict with Russia who has been allies with Syria since the 1970s. There isn't much more we can do outside of what we're already doing. Using limited special forces, airstrikes, and fermenting chaos.

If Assad _was_ deposed? Russia would likely just prop up another person to continue because Russia isn't going to lose their bases or port in Syria.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 14, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 14, 2018 ---

You seem to have mistaken the fact that we are limited to how involved we can get. We cannot send troops proper in like Iraq because Russia militarially backs Assad. Russia's military has full military access in Syria, without being under the consent of the Syrian government.

Russia has bases there and a major port.

That being said, we cannot let chemical attacks go without a response. It leads to other tinpot dictators opting to try the same things.

 

If it is limited to this missle strike I have no issue. I feel like it is naieve to pretend this won't escalate but hopefully i'm proven wrong.

 

If we landed troops in order to dethrone Assad, it would immediately lead us into direct conflict with Russia. It would be tantamount to Russia sending troops into Iraq to topple that government.

Truth be told, I'm 35% ok with Nuclear war/winter if it meant we got to smack down those Russian dogs and teach them their place.

 

???

 

I meant what I said. Russia keeps smacking the West in the face. It's time we smack them back, hard.

Knowing this would likely lead to nuclear conflict, I'm 35% for it, 65% against it.

 

bombing syria= bad

one single miscalculation would make america go kaboom

because one single miscalculation= maybe us hitting russian base with russian troop

boom world war

boom everyone dead