And again

For heaven sake provide better opposition Wooosh.

As does letting in millions of people not capable of assimilating peacefully into western society...only a very few of which can cause serious problems...problems that won't be solved by banning guns or knives, machetes or whatever...

What about the millions of them who already have assimilated peacefully into western society.

Yes Islamic extremism is a serious matter, but it's not going to bring about the collapse of western civilization.

"Well ignoring the fact that new IRA are mostly based in Northern Ireland, they aren't generally going around robbing stores or committing mass shootings"

That's my point. It's not the guns. More guns doesn't mean more crime.

An armed society is a polite society.

Nonsense, Stav, a president does not have a Democratic mandate on every policy.

A democratic mandate is a strong consensus on "a particular issue" that is very high, where the president (left or right) is obliged. It does not give a president absolute authority on every issue.

A president must always be open to criticism - particularly if they ignore a Democratic mandate.

Also, Trump is a liar and would never keep his promises anyway.

"An armed society is a polite society."

Not true in my country. I doubt that's true anywhere else.

@Rooinek.

I know it's a super cliche saying but "The threat of violence is the foundation on which all diplomacy rests"

I know this first hand from experiences living in Durban and using metro rail and other public transport to go to school/college and then work.

One night My brothers(1 blood, 1foster) and I were leaving Durban Station for a night shift when we were approached by a gang of skelms (around 7 or 8) who started producing knives and such as they fanned out in front of us. Little did they know we also had knives and a knuckle duster or two. When we pulled them out it was as if the red sea parted and we walked straight through.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

What about the millions of them who already have assimilated peacefully into western society.

What about their children, still moslems. If those kids fail in life the Mosque is there to support them and tell them how they have been disrespected. Having an ever larger group in your country that is capable of believing that violence against strangers is justified in the name of religion, seems insane.

That's my point. It's not the guns. More guns doesn't mean more crime.

Not a very good one, in the case of the New IRA those guns are used for political violence, AKA terrorism, albeit at a much lower scale than what was previously happening.

An armed society is a polite society.

In my view an armed society is a scared society.

A democratic mandate is a strong consensus on "a particular issue" that is very high, where the president (left or right) is obliged. It does not give a president absolute authority on every issue.

In a democratic society you're free to argue your points and campaign on them, regardless of what popular opinion is. Peoples opinions change over time (Brexit was an example) While you could argue Labour would have popular support to bring down immigration further from what they are already doing (immigration into the UK dropped both last year and this year) I'm not sure you would get popular support for a ban based on religion.

What about their children, still moslems

Out of curiosity why the term Moslems as opposed to Muslims...seems abit out of date.

If those kids fail in life the Mosque is there to support them and tell them how they have been disrespected.

Leaving aside the idea that a person's life can be judged a failure when they are still just a kid, what are you trying to say, the local mosque is going to tell a Muslim kid who's suffered a set back in life that it's all the wests fault and recommend that they become a Jihadist?

Having an ever larger group in your country that is capable of believing that violence against strangers is justified in the name of religion, seems insane.

Any group or individual is capable of believing violence against strangers is justified.

Out of curiosity why the term Moslems as opposed to Muslims...seems abit out of date.

I also prefer Calcutta over Kolkata.

Leaving aside the idea that a person's life can be judged a failure when they are still just a kid, what are you trying to say, the local mosque is going to tell a Muslim kid who's suffered a set back in life that it's all the wests fault and recommend that they become a Jihadist?

What do you think, the mosque is going to suggest therapy?

Any group or individual is capable of believing violence against strangers is justified.

We are talking about a group of some size that believes the same thing vs individual aberrant types. It’s the existence of the group that makes it different

--

What do you think, the mosque is going to suggest therapy?

Assuming that's where the kid goes no. I would assume it would be something similar to if a non Muslim person went to church, the cleric would tell the person to have faith in god, god has a plan, god loves you that sort of thing, not well kid you tried, now death to the infidel.

We are talking about a group of some size that believes the same thing vs individual aberrant types. It’s the existence of the group that makes it different

A group of some size, its an extremely small minority that would ever consider violence, well under 1%. Now maybe you want to argue that even if its very small minority that they represent a significant higher risk of inflicting these types of attacks in western countries than non Muslims which is probably a true statement, but if you look hard enough you will probably find categories of crimes such as school and university mass shootings are carried out primarily by white men.

In the case of the US mass shootings and gun violence in general is far greater danger to the public than Islamic extremism.

Shark you do realise that historically speaking Christian and Western countries have killed far more people in wars and conflicts than Muslims have?

In the case of the US mass shootings and gun violence in general is far greater danger to the public than Islamic extremism.

…

Not if you confine deaths to mass shootings. Other shootings, 4 or less, are far more likely to have a personal element…robbery or personal revenge for example. When we exclude the personal element and focus on deaths of innocent people who were strangers to the perpetrators, 9/11 dominates:

If you mean “public mass shootings” (the classic headline events)

One widely used public mass shooting dataset (Rockefeller Institute factsheet) reports 1,728 people killed in U.S. mass public shootings since 1966. That total is below the 2,977 victims killed on 9/11. Rockefeller Institute of Government+1

So under that definition: No, deaths from mass public shootings since 9/11 have not exceeded 9/11.

So while the chances that you may be killed by another person you know exceed the chances of being killed in a mass event historically. If you died in a mass event in the 21st century it was most likely a moslem attack.

And here’s the other thing to contemplate, 9/11 isn’t some kind of upper bound technologically. The minds that gave us 9/11 would have been happier with 297,000 dead.

Not if you confine deaths to mass shootings. Other shootings, 4 or less, are far more likely to have a personal element…robbery or personal revenge for example. When we exclude the personal element and focus on deaths of innocent people who were strangers to the perpetrators, 9/11 dominates:

Well your picking a definition that suits your argument, another more broader definition of 4+ people are shoot as used by the Gun Violence Archive has 4,000-7,000+ killed since 2001.

Secondly motive is irrelevant. I'm not sure why getting shot being someone you know or being shot in a robbery is any less of crime or not as bad as being shot by a stranger.

Thirdly even if it wasn't removing shootings with 4 or less because they have a higher probability of being for personal motives, revenge or robbery would skew the figures because I doubt you could get reliable break down of the motives.

So while the chances that you may be killed by another person you know exceed the chances of being killed in a mass event historically. If you died in a mass event in the 21st century it was most likely a moslem attack.

Since 2001, we had 9/11 which caused 2,977 deaths we've have had a further 162 people killed in the US by Islamic extremism. In Europe the death toll stands at about 1,000. Just 6 in Canada, about 20 in Australia and none in New Zealand. Combined that is less than American deaths in mass killing incidents.

Just looking at Europe the time frame of 25 years isn't far off the death isn't far off the time frame of the year 30 year long Troubles in Northern Ireland, which was a conflict that saw over 3,532 and some 47,500+ injured. You can add almost another 900 killed and several thousand more wounded by ETA in Spain albeit over a much longer time frame. Point is that though Islamic terrorism is the primary security threat in Europe at present, but people seem to forget in the not too distant past indigenous terrorist groups in Europe were just as capable of violence as Islamists are now and actually inflicted greater causalities.

And here’s the other thing to contemplate, 9/11 isn’t some kind of upper bound technologically. The minds that gave us 9/11 would have been happier with 297,000 dead.

And some of the crazy people involved mass shootings, if they had the capability would kill as many as they could. But is this the society we want to live in, pre-judged an entire religion on hypotheticals.

Stav, I would thank you for the balance you bring to this board . . . if it was in fact a balance. It's anything but.

I picture you and Moffie on a see-saw with you landing quite hard on the tyre while Moffie is shot into orbit.

@Stav, in the Dark Ages, savagery was the norm. However, in almost 80 years, Europe has mostly been at peace- until Putin. The Arab world has not been at peace with itself or with other countries. If they had the means, they could or would be much more dangerous.

If they had the means, they would destroy the West and either exterminate dissidents or force them into slavery...and they are not hiding it...they say it openly.

The priority is not to let people behave like liberals. Funny how liberals claim people must assimilate until they face that assimilation to a liberal society means behaving like a liberal.

@Stav, in the Dark Ages, savagery was the norm. However, in almost 80 years, Europe has mostly been at peace- until Putin. The Arab world has not been at peace with itself or with other countries. If they had the means, they could or would be much more dangerous.

Do you know why Europe was mostly at peace, because we had practically destroyed the continent twice in the two must violent and destructive war in history and that came after centuries of near constant warfare and colonialism.

Here's the thing, all Islamic attacks in Europe combined don't even come close to the number of civilians killed by western military operation in Iraq alone.

Then we got to western complicity in the enabling of Israel to occupy and steal the territory of the Palestinian's and carry out what was all but certainly ethnic cleansing and quite possibly genocide. What about certain western countries refusing to carry out orders to arrest people accused of war crimes by ICJ.

Never mind even comparing that to estimated 400,000 to 1.5 million causalities in the Russian-Ukraine war, a war that's been waged by the army of Christian nation.

We could do other comparison's to western hypocrisy, the US toppling the democratically elected leader if Iran in order to install a brutal dictator which ended up with him being toppled by Islamic revolutionaries, then backing another brutal dictator Saddam in his war against Iran.

What's that saying, the dildo of consequences rarely comes lubbed?

None of that is to excuse Islamic attacks in the west or to downplay that many Muslims countries are quite repressive states, but this morale superiority of the west is obnoxious.

If they had the means, they would destroy the West and either exterminate dissidents or force them into slavery...and they are not hiding it...they say it openly.

Are you really unable to distinguish between a extremely small minority of religious zealots and the majority of a religion?

Once again it’s simple. I’m 100% in favor of stricter gun laws to tackle violent crime and domestic deaths due to shootings. Set that aside…..I’ll say it again because it appears to be hard to grasp…..set that aside, it stems from a totally different set of motivations.

Now in terms of mass killings in America since the beginning of the century, moslem ideology has been the most important factor. And it continues to be the most important risk for the future. Because it is based on deep seated belief, never been clearly disavowed by those the likely perpetrators believe and has an organizing mechanism in the mosques.

That risk can only escalate as the number of moslems increase. Which doesn’t in any way deny that the majority of moslems want a peaceful life. It’s unfortunate but a reality that the system harbors these radicals.

So do we go on bringing more of these people in knowing we have no way of diminishing the risk. Knowing that an event larger than 9/11 is probably likely at some point? Knowing that the seeds of future dissension are being planted….that the culture of our major cities will likely be changed.

Or do we simply say, we will help if we can, but we have to protect our own way of life. That question is probably even more pressing in Europe.

The Arab world has not been at peace with itself or with other countries. If they had the means, they could or would be much more dangerous.

So the Ottoman empire was not a decent government...Liberals... Double standards all the way done.

"So the Ottoman empire was not a decent government...Liberals... Double standards all the way done."

LOL...upstanding lot they were:

"The Ottoman Empire was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million Christian people (Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians) through systematic campaigns of mass murder, deportation, and ethnic cleansing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The most significant period of killing occurred during and after World War I, primarily between 1915 and 1923, and is widely recognized by scholars as genocide. "

The Ottoman who? They no longer exist.

@Stav, try living in a "moderate" Muslim country, and report back to us. The problem is that there are very few moderate Muslim countries.

The UAE have pretty much opened itself up to the West to facilitate oil sales, but take a look at the others - Iran, Afghanistan

You are not on the same page as the majority. The far-right pretty much campaigns on one thing - and France, Germany and the UK could get a far-right government come next election cycle.

Sort of get the impression as well that part of the reason join the police in the US is so they get to legally shoot someone.

What a disrespectful and disgusting thing to say to all those honourable first responders.

Maybe it would change your mind if they rescued one of your children from an attempted kidnapping or paedophile snatch at the local market.

You seem to stoop very low these days to get your "message" across

You are not on the same page as the majority. The far-right pretty much campaigns on one thing - and France, Germany and the UK could get a far-right government come next election cycle.

I might not be in terms of immigration though I argue that the public perception is driven by disinformation and but I also think your mixing up anti immigrant sentiment with anti Muslim sentiment.

I'm pretty certain that most populations in Europe do want lower immigration but they are willing to accept some level of immigration provided it's bringing in skilled workers that are needed like Doctors etc.

I'm not so sure the public would go for blanket ban on Muslims.

Part of me think's there should a public referendum where if a country votes to reduce immigration, those voting in favour of placing restrictions on immigration should be told in order to compensate for the loss of tax revenue those immigrants would have brought in they the option of paying higher taxes, pushing back their retirement age by 5 years and reducing the size of state pensions. In addition anyone who votes for that will no longer be allowed be treated by foreign medical works in the healthcare sector, you have to wait in line for an indigenous doctor.

What a disrespectful and disgusting thing to say to all those honourable first responders.

Maybe it would change your mind if they rescued one of your children from an attempted kidnapping or paedophile snatch at the local market.

You seem to stoop very low these days to get your "message" across

Oh shock you're outraged yet again. I will say the vast majority of US police are indeed fine honourable people, but compared to other polices forces the training they receive is quite poor (6 months training vs 3 years training in my country) and a good chunk of the US training is firearm trainings. There is numerous videos online of US police resorting to using their weapons unnecessarily or over zealously.

Part of it is possible down to fear, because guns are so prevalent in America they can never be sure that the suspect isn't armed.

But in other examples that's not the case. There was a comparison of two similar cases in the US and Germany both of which resulted in a response from armed police.

In the American case a man with mental issues was brandishing a manchette like weapon. US police arrived and when the suspect was uncooperative they absolutely riddled the man with bullets killing him.

In the German case a drunken man brandishing a similar weapon was approached by armed police. Again he was uncooperative, so the German police shot him once in the leg to disable him and then detained him.

Oh shock you're outraged yet again

Nope, just indifferent to how you really comprehend things happening around you .....and pointing out your outright stupidity .....besides also just pointing out you, showing us your true character again....

I will say the vast majority of US police are indeed fine honourable people, but compared to other polices forces the training they receive is quite poor (6 months training vs 3 years training in my country) and a good chunk of the US training is firearm trainings. There is numerous videos online of US police resorting to using their weapons unnecessarily or over zealously.

Part of it is possible down to fear, because guns are so prevalent in America they can never be sure that the suspect isn't armed.

But in other examples that's not the case. There was a comparison of two similar cases in the US and Germany both of which resulted in a response from armed police.

In the American case a man with mental issues was brandishing a manchette like weapon. US police arrived and when the suspect was uncooperative they absolutely riddled the man with bullets killing him.

In the German case a drunken man brandishing a similar weapon was approached by armed police. Again he was uncooperative, so the German police shot him once in the leg to disable him and then detained him.

All this response shows me, and possibly most people reading it, is that you have now decided to walk back your absolutely ridiculous and shameful comments about these first responders by now comparing how they respond to certain incidents with the training that they receive compared to other countries.

This explanation is a very far way from where you initially started, by saying that you believe that people join the police services in the US because it gives them a legal opportunity to shoot people

Nope, just indifferent to how you really comprehend things happening around you .....and pointing out your outright stupidity .....besides also just pointing out you, showing us your true character again....

More outrage.

All this response shows me, and possibly most people reading it, is that you have now decided to walk back your absolutely ridiculous and shameful comments about these first responders by now comparing how they respond to certain incidents with the training that they receive compared to other countries.

This explanation is a very far way from where you initially started, by saying that you believe that people join the police services in the US because it gives them a legal opportunity to shoot people

I stand by my belief that being able to legally discharge a firearm is a motivator for a considerable minority of people joining the US police. I also think that US police comparatively less training compared to other countries is indicative of a society that doesn't seem to have a problem with a shoot first ask questions later view of policing. The gun is virtually worshipped in American society and that bleeds into its police force.

"The Ottoman Empire was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million Christian people (Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians) through systematic campaigns of mass murder, deportation, and ethnic cleansing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The most significant period of killing occurred during and after World War I, primarily between 1915 and 1923, and is widely recognized by scholars as genocide. "

Double standards and liberals... Gazza alone is peopled with more than 2 millions people. It is another thing that makes liberals so prompt to label other actions. And liberals entertain the fantasy they can stomach everything so when they can not acknowledge something happened, it must be considered as having not happened.

Already many times: scum love liberals because liberals make them feel good. No matter how extreme the scum behave, liberals win the competition...

The Ottoman who? They no longer exist.

They no longer exist and they ruled over the middle east. The claim that this area of the world had always be burdened with permanent war is bogus. The current state of affairs has a lot to do with liberal manipulations, how they drew frontiers and to what avail.

What a disrespectful and disgusting thing to say to all those honourable first responders.

Maybe it would change your mind if they rescued one of your children from an attempted kidnapping or paedophile snatch at the local market.

Liberals and their one way mind. Maybe a change in mind would happen if this or that happens following the action of these first responders. But when it happens, liberals blame the victims of the first responders, victims who had it coming of course.

The Liberals must go back to our colonial roots. It is time to re-take Africa and once more teach them our moral ways.

Previously, we had the Christian missionaries who laid the path before the rest of us arrived.

Now we have liberal values that set us above all else.

All natural assets must be liberated with our latest mining techniques. Freed from the earth by all means possible. Let's get this party started.

More outrage

Nope, just more stupidity from you

I stand by my belief that being able to legally discharge a firearm is a motivator for a considerable minority of people joining the US police. I also think that US police comparatively less training compared to other countries is indicative of a society that doesn't seem to have a problem with a shoot first ask questions later view of policing. The gun is virtually worshipped in American society and that bleeds into its police force.

Oh, so now it's a "considerable minority" ........ I see ...... that was adjusted very quickly..... back stepping I see.

Despite there being so much crime all over the US and also over 460 million civilian firearms on the streets on any given day, only 27% of their police officers ever get to fire their gun during their entire working career.

In most of the large urban departments, less then 3% of the police officers discharged their firearm in any given year..... but yeah, with your logic applied, your revised "considerable minority" could also include the general public as well.

I stand by my belief that being able to legally discharge a firearm is a motivator for a considerable minority of people joining the US police. I also think that US police comparatively less training compared to other countries is indicative of a society that doesn't seem to have a problem with a shoot first ask questions later view of policing. The gun is virtually worshipped in American society and that bleeds into its police force.

_______

While most officers never fire their weapon at a person, around

27-30% of U.S. police officers report having fired their service weapon at least once during their career, though this includes incidents like dispatching injured animals, not just shootings at people. The vast majority of officers go their entire careers without discharging a firearm in the line of duty, with some studies suggesting less than 1% might shoot at people, while a significant portion of those who doshoot only do so once, often for animal control.

…..

If anybody is depraved enough to enjoy shooting animals a hunting license is easy to get in the US and there are many private clubs for shooting. So Anger your thesis is a large minority of policemen have joined the force for less than a 1 % chance they will get to shoot at a human.

Utter nonsense once again. Your contempt for America must have some personal motivation.Maybe a cousin who made it big in the States while you languish 2 miles from where you were born? Whatever the reason, you are clueless.

As for worship of the gun. If that exists is because the woke blokes in Hollywood who never saw an anti establishment cause they don’t support, put the gun and the car chase in every movie. And then are’ all in favor’ of gun control.

The Liberals must go back to our colonial roots. It is time to re-take Africa and once more teach them our moral ways.

Liberals have a very fragile ego. Again with this story of colonising Africa. A liberal country like the US do not need to return to their colonial roots or globalist roots. The US are a product of colonialism and globalism. The US are a colonial state and by essence globalist.

It keeps being very funny, as soon as liberals see their narrative challenged, they sink in cheap deflection.

If ever liberals return to Africa, this will be another stage to confirm or infirm speculation about liberals. One speculation that is ongoing: liberals will not return to Africa. Most parts of Africa are on the path to be turn into a gigantic Kolmanskop. They do not want to return to Africa to avoid being in charge when it happens.

So between the speculation made to deflect (liberals will return to Africa to colonise) and the speculation that Liberals will avoid returning to Africa, one is proven incorrect as time goes by while the other is being proven correct as time goes by.

Prediction is all that matters. Prediction is a powerful guard against Liberals' warped way of thinking.

Meaningless data, because of context.

Oh, so now it's a "considerable minority" ........ I see ...... that was adjusted very quickly..... back stepping I see.

Despite there being so much crime all over the US and also over 460 million civilian firearms on the streets on any given day, only 27% of their police officers ever get to fire their gun during their entire working career.

In most of the large urban departments, less then 3% of the police officers discharged their firearm in any given year..... but yeah, with your logic applied, your revised "considerable minority" could also include the general public as well.

That's still a considerable number of people, depending on how you count various types of law enforcement agencies that's still either ten's or hundreds of thousands of people.

But yes it could be applied to the general public as well. America seems to have this sort of affinity for the wild west mentality of law and order. You get a gun and you go seek out the bad guy. they want that shoot out at the O.K Carrol.

If anybody is depraved enough to enjoy shooting animals a hunting license is easy to get in the US and there are many private clubs for shooting. So Anger your thesis is a large minority of policemen have joined the force for less than a 1 % chance they will get to shoot at a human.

Utter nonsense once again. Your contempt for America must have some personal motivation.Maybe a cousin who made it big in the States while you languish 2 miles from where you were born? Whatever the reason, you are clueless.

I have contempt for the MAGA part of America but of course MAGA can't make the distinction that it doesn't represent all of America. Hence criticism of Trump/MAGA is turned into criticism of America.

The irony here though of you claiming I have contempt for America, when you trying to disparage me for possibly living close to were I was born. What did you say about people who live in London/UK sad people with nothing in their lives except waiting for the next football match.

If fairness America's obsession with guns isn't really a MAGA thing long predating it, but if Ireland or any European country had the US's obsession with guns I'd call it as nutty all the same.

But with you I'm pretty certain that it's not so much contempt you have for Europe, it's that you're unable to defend Trump's various actions, so a defence mechanism kicks in where you have to play but what about Europe card over and over.

But back on the point of police and guns, you can point out that less than 1% of police get a chance to shoot at a human, that's still several thousand police officers. But it's not just about those who actually do get to discharge their firearms at humans but about joining in an effort to increase the likelihood of being able to do that.

As for worship of the gun. If that exists is because the woke blokes in Hollywood who never saw an anti establishment cause they don’t support, put the gun and the car chase in every movie. And then are’ all in favor’ of gun control.

I actually do think Hollywood bears considerable responsibility accountable for gun worship in America and yes it's hypocritical of Hollywood to champion gun control when it contribute to America's fascination with the gun, but holy molly gun violence is caused by wokeness now, are you shitting me. Its the political right that constantly block gun control measures.

Can you imagine if Hollywood said we are going stop making action movies, war movies, thrillers and generally reduce the amount of movies with guns in them. The political right would be screaming woke censorship from the rooftops.

But yes it could be applied to the general public as well. America seems to have this sort of affinity for the wild west mentality of law and order. You get a gun and you go seek out the bad guy. they want that shoot out at the O.K Carrol.

….

But at least they don’t murder old men in boats and blow up horses in a park eh?Nor have they turned a blind eye to domestic terrorism for decades.

Can you imagine if Hollywood said we are going stop making action movies, war movies, thrillers and generally reduce the amount of movies with guns in them. The political right would be screaming woke censorship from the rooftops.

Hollywood can absolutely do that if they wish….the laws are clear. But they don’t because it would crush their stocks… so what’s more moral loving guns or hating guns but promoting them to make money.

But with you I'm pretty certain that it's not so much contempt you have for Europe, it's that you're unable to defend Trump's various actions, so a defence mechanism kicks in where you have to play but what about Europe card over and over.

I have lived for a year in Greece, owned an apartment in Belgravia for 20 years, lived in Hadley Wood for 3 years….and been involved in European businesses for many years. I have a realistic view of the trajectory and capability, and it’s not contempt it’s concern.contempt for the leadership certainly.

As for Trump, it may be hard for you zealots to grasp, reasonable people don’t worship the man…they often don’t approve of his utterances. But as a political force he is often, not always, in the right place. And it’s important because uncontrolled immigration, burgeoning national debt, Chinese trade imbalances, and the inability of Europe to defend itself are dangerous issues, and he is the only politician since Reagan and Thatcher who has been willing to take action vs talk.

I have no problem with Trump criticism. The WSJ which I respect does it every day. But there there has to be a sense of balance and a sense of what’s at stake.

What a crock of horse sh!t....viva the 1st 2 amendments!!!

@Moz, you're wasting your time with the bots.

But at least they don’t murder old men in boats and blow up horses in a park eh?Nor have they turned a blind eye to domestic terrorism for decades.

What are you on about?

Hollywood can absolutely do that if they wish….the laws are clear. But they don’t because it would crush their stocks… so what’s more moral loving guns or hating guns but promoting them to make money.

Oh now you have a problem with capitalism? What more moral, blaming Hollywood and constantly criticising the side that tries to do something about gun violence in the US while refusing to assign blame to the side constantly blocking action to reduce gun crime.

I have lived for a year in Greece, owned an apartment in Belgravia for 20 years, lived in Hadley Wood for 3 years….and been involved in European businesses for many years. I have a realistic view of the trajectory and capability, and it’s not contempt it’s concern.contempt for the leadership certainly.

It's not realistic, your assessment is skewed by American right wing ideology.

As for Trump, it may be hard for you zealots to grasp, reasonable people don’t worship the man…they often don’t approve of his utterances. But as a political force he is often, not always, in the right place.

You don't worship the man but boy do you go to bat for him an awful lot.

And it’s important because uncontrolled immigration, burgeoning national debt, Chinese trade imbalances, and the inability of Europe to defend itself are dangerous issues, and he is the only politician since Reagan and Thatcher who has been willing to take action vs talk.

Some of those issues are indeed important and need addressing, but the how really does matter as well as the effectiveness of those actions.