By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RolStoppable said:
jason1637 said:

My bad it's 5,577 which is still way less people affected than actual problems. The reason the ratio is higher compared to Austria could be that there are bigger cities and more Urban areas in the US so with a higher density of people more people can be affected by gun violence. But still the point was to show that there is actually no gun problem compared to other major issues.

And no waifus are weird.

Alrighty, a gun-related death is not an actual problem.

You have to work on punctuation. Your last sentence says that no waifus are weird, so waifus aren't weird. But you actually meant the opposite, so you have to put a comma after the 'no' to make that clear. Bad English is another significant problem in the USA, there are even people who believe that 'of' is a verb. At one point in my time on this website there was even someone who linked to a website that tried to justify that 'of' is a verb.

Someone dying is always a problem even if it comes from a gun but i'm saying that it's not the crisis the media makes it out to be. This is more obvious when you compare the numbers to other causes of death.

We all make grammatical errors. It's not an exclusively American issue.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
RolStoppable said:

Alrighty, a gun-related death is not an actual problem.

You have to work on punctuation. Your last sentence says that no waifus are weird, so waifus aren't weird. But you actually meant the opposite, so you have to put a comma after the 'no' to make that clear. Bad English is another significant problem in the USA, there are even people who believe that 'of' is a verb. At one point in my time on this website there was even someone who linked to a website that tried to justify that 'of' is a verb.

Someone dying is always a problem even if it comes from a gun but i'm saying that it's not the crisis the media makes it out to be. This is more obvious when you compare the numbers to other causes of death.

We all make grammatical errors. It's not an exclusively American issue.

a) (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws - This is conjecture and generally considered to be false. Firearms are a strong risk factor for suicide because they have a high success rate and they provide immediacy, allowing rash decisions. Gun laws do very much have an impact on suicide rates.

b) 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion - This is extremely short sighted. Think for a second, why did these law enforcement officers rely on deadly force? Often it is because there either was a firearm present or they believed a firearm to be present.

c) 489 (2%) are accidental - This should not be excluded.

d) This is entirely based upon a logical fallacy. Its called the fallacy of relative privation. Essentially it is dismissing an issue by simply pointing at another issue. The good old "Who cares about income inequality when there is a genocide happening in Rwanda". Its not a good argument. Tens of thousands of deaths per year and tens of thousands more injuries should not be ignored because there are other issues. That isn't how the world works and that isn't how the government works. Yes, other issues should be addressed (and many are), but that doesn't mean that this issue should be ignored.

You want statistics, take a look at the homicide rate in pretty much any comparable country. Things don't fare well for America. We can do better.

EDIT: And just for some more context, over 70,000 Americans were treated for non fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Some more context: Over the course of two years, more individuals die from firearms in America than the amount of Americans who died over the span of the 20 year Vietnam War. Some more context: Approximately 6000 people died from the 9/11 attacks. That is surpassed approximately every seven weeks by gun deaths in America. This is not meant to demonstrate that 9/11 was actually no big deal, but instead to demonstrate the ridiculousness of employing this fallacy.

EDIT2: Actually I'm going to keep going.

It is incredibly shady that they are using a rough estimate for total deaths (30k), but exact figures for things like suicide numbers. Lets take the actual numbers from the source they themselves used:

33,636

That means (assuming all of their other numbers are accurate), there were not 5577 "relevant" firearm deaths that year, but instead 9222. That is a a 65% increase, which is fairly massive, however, that same source states that the actual number of firearm homicides was 11208 (which excludes accidents, suicides and law enforcement intervention) which brings the increase to about 100%. Taking more recent statistics, there were over 14,000 firearm homicides in 2017. Comparing that to the original toll provides a 150% increase.

It is very shady that the first source provides many of these numbers but the individual pulled from different sources and different years for pretty much every one.

EDIT3: Fuck it, I'm already in:

Lets compare some more numbers between the number they used and the number stated in the original source:

Gun deaths: 30,000 vs 33,636

Suicides by firearm: 22,938 vs 21,175

Law enforcement: 987 vs 467 (note, the second statistic here is for Legal Intervention/War, so it includes additional deaths)

Accidental: 489 vs 505

Now lets look at some cities (for these, I have to pull from different sources, but I am using 2013 as my baseline as per the above statistics and note that these are total homicides, not only homicides by firearm (note: Homicides by firearm tend to account for about 66% of homicides, so be sure to cut the right side of the below equations down by 1/3))

St Louis: 298 vs 120

Detroit: 327 vs 333

Baltimore: 328 vs 235

Chicago: 764 vs 415

Seeing a pattern yet?

Last edited by sundin13 - on 19 June 2019

sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

Someone dying is always a problem even if it comes from a gun but i'm saying that it's not the crisis the media makes it out to be. This is more obvious when you compare the numbers to other causes of death.

We all make grammatical errors. It's not an exclusively American issue.

a) (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws - This is conjecture and generally considered to be false. Firearms are a strong risk factor for suicide because they have a high success rate and they provide immediacy, allowing rash decisions. Gun laws do very much have an impact on suicide rates.

b) 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion - This is extremely short sighted. Think for a second, why did these law enforcement officers rely on deadly force? Often it is because there either was a firearm present or they believed a firearm to be present.

c) 489 (2%) are accidental - This should not be excluded.

d) This is entirely based upon a logical fallacy. Its called the fallacy of relative privation. Essentially it is dismissing an issue by simply pointing at another issue. The good old "Who cares about income inequality when there is a genocide happening in Rwanda". Its not a good argument. Tens of thousands of deaths per year and tens of thousands more injuries should not be ignored because there are other issues. That isn't how the world works and that isn't how the government works. Yes, other issues should be addressed (and many are), but that doesn't mean that this issue should be ignored.

You want statistics, take a look at the homicide rate in pretty much any comparable country. Things don't fare well for America. We can do better.

EDIT: And just for some more context, over 70,000 Americans were treated for non fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Some more context: Over the course of two years, more individuals die from firearms in America than the amount of Americans who died over the span of the 20 year Vietnam War. Some more context: Approximately 6000 people died from the 9/11 attacks. That is surpassed approximately every seven weeks by gun deaths in America. This is not meant to demonstrate that 9/11 was actually no big deal, but instead to demonstrate the ridiculousness of employing this fallacy.

EDIT2: Actually I'm going to keep going.

It is incredibly shady that they are using a rough estimate for total deaths (30k), but exact figures for things like suicide numbers. Lets take the actual numbers from the source they themselves used:

33,636

That means (assuming all of their other numbers are accurate), there were not 5577 "relevant" firearm deaths that year, but instead 9222. That is a a 65% increase, which is fairly massive, however, that same source states that the actual number of firearm homicides was 11208 (which excludes accidents, suicides and law enforcement intervention) which brings the increase to about 100%. Taking more recent statistics, there were over 14,000 firearm homicides in 2017. Comparing that to the original toll provides a 150% increase.

Uh I had a response but i closed the tab by accident so i'll try to retype the major points of my reply again.

1. Sucide is more af a mental health issue than a gun issue. There are lots of countries with high sucide rates and strict gun laws. Also there are other ways people off themselves. Using a gun accounts for less than 50% of suicidal deaths.

2. There is no evidence to support that claim. From what i've seen most police shootings have to do with racial bias against a minority than them actually having a gun.

3. Accidents happen. Car accidents, homes burnings are accidents that happen but aren't considered to eb a crisis.

4. The comparison was to show that there are other issues that can actually be considered a "crisis" that affect way more people than gun violence.

5. 70k is still a pretty small amount percentage wise and yeah they might be higher than Vietnam or 9/11 but the number of people that died in Vietnam is a pretty small amount. More people died in two year than they did in one day in 9/11 makes sense. If you compare car deaths or other types of deaths in the last two years im sure they will surpass the vietnam and 9/11 totals.

6. I was not aware that those number were wrong. The sources looked pretty legit. if it's 11-14k those numbers are still relatively small and gun violence has decreased since 2017 anyway.



jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

a) (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws - This is conjecture and generally considered to be false. Firearms are a strong risk factor for suicide because they have a high success rate and they provide immediacy, allowing rash decisions. Gun laws do very much have an impact on suicide rates.

b) 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion - This is extremely short sighted. Think for a second, why did these law enforcement officers rely on deadly force? Often it is because there either was a firearm present or they believed a firearm to be present.

c) 489 (2%) are accidental - This should not be excluded.

d) This is entirely based upon a logical fallacy. Its called the fallacy of relative privation. Essentially it is dismissing an issue by simply pointing at another issue. The good old "Who cares about income inequality when there is a genocide happening in Rwanda". Its not a good argument. Tens of thousands of deaths per year and tens of thousands more injuries should not be ignored because there are other issues. That isn't how the world works and that isn't how the government works. Yes, other issues should be addressed (and many are), but that doesn't mean that this issue should be ignored.

You want statistics, take a look at the homicide rate in pretty much any comparable country. Things don't fare well for America. We can do better.

EDIT: And just for some more context, over 70,000 Americans were treated for non fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Some more context: Over the course of two years, more individuals die from firearms in America than the amount of Americans who died over the span of the 20 year Vietnam War. Some more context: Approximately 6000 people died from the 9/11 attacks. That is surpassed approximately every seven weeks by gun deaths in America. This is not meant to demonstrate that 9/11 was actually no big deal, but instead to demonstrate the ridiculousness of employing this fallacy.

EDIT2: Actually I'm going to keep going.

It is incredibly shady that they are using a rough estimate for total deaths (30k), but exact figures for things like suicide numbers. Lets take the actual numbers from the source they themselves used:

33,636

That means (assuming all of their other numbers are accurate), there were not 5577 "relevant" firearm deaths that year, but instead 9222. That is a a 65% increase, which is fairly massive, however, that same source states that the actual number of firearm homicides was 11208 (which excludes accidents, suicides and law enforcement intervention) which brings the increase to about 100%. Taking more recent statistics, there were over 14,000 firearm homicides in 2017. Comparing that to the original toll provides a 150% increase.

Uh I had a response but i closed the tab by accident so i'll try to retype the major points of my reply again.

1. Sucide is more af a mental health issue than a gun issue. There are lots of countries with high sucide rates and strict gun laws. Also there are other ways people off themselves. Using a gun accounts for less than 50% of suicidal deaths.

2. There is no evidence to support that claim. From what i've seen most police shootings have to do with racial bias against a minority than them actually having a gun.

3. Accidents happen. Car accidents, homes burnings are accidents that happen but aren't considered to eb a crisis.

4. The comparison was to show that there are other issues that can actually be considered a "crisis" that affect way more people than gun violence.

5. 70k is still a pretty small amount percentage wise and yeah they might be higher than Vietnam or 9/11 but the number of people that died in Vietnam is a pretty small amount. More people died in two year than they did in one day in 9/11 makes sense. If you compare car deaths or other types of deaths in the last two years im sure they will surpass the vietnam and 9/11 totals.

6. I was not aware that those number were wrong. The sources looked pretty legit. if it's 11-14k those numbers are still relatively small and gun violence has decreased since 2017 anyway.

1) While obviously suicide is a mental issue, this does not mean that firearm laws would have no impact on reducing suicide numbers.

2) In the US this year, over half of those who were killed by police possessed a firearm.

3) Gun accidents don't happen if there are no guns around.

The rest doesn't really make any counter-argument to the point that this is based on a false premise. Making comparisons in this capacity does nothing to actually contribute to the discussion surrounding gun control legislation. Additionally, there is a third edit to my post which goes into more depth in terms of how the numbers used in the OP are flawed and misleading.



sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

Uh I had a response but i closed the tab by accident so i'll try to retype the major points of my reply again.

1. Sucide is more af a mental health issue than a gun issue. There are lots of countries with high sucide rates and strict gun laws. Also there are other ways people off themselves. Using a gun accounts for less than 50% of suicidal deaths.

2. There is no evidence to support that claim. From what i've seen most police shootings have to do with racial bias against a minority than them actually having a gun.

3. Accidents happen. Car accidents, homes burnings are accidents that happen but aren't considered to eb a crisis.

4. The comparison was to show that there are other issues that can actually be considered a "crisis" that affect way more people than gun violence.

5. 70k is still a pretty small amount percentage wise and yeah they might be higher than Vietnam or 9/11 but the number of people that died in Vietnam is a pretty small amount. More people died in two year than they did in one day in 9/11 makes sense. If you compare car deaths or other types of deaths in the last two years im sure they will surpass the vietnam and 9/11 totals.

6. I was not aware that those number were wrong. The sources looked pretty legit. if it's 11-14k those numbers are still relatively small and gun violence has decreased since 2017 anyway.

1) While obviously suicide is a mental issue, this does not mean that firearm laws would have no impact on reducing suicide numbers.

2) In the US this year, over half of those who were killed by police possessed a firearm.

3) Gun accidents don't happen if there are no guns around.

The rest doesn't really make any counter-argument to the point that this is based on a false premise. Making comparisons in this capacity does nothing to actually contribute to the discussion surrounding gun control legislation. Additionally, there is a third edit to my post which goes into more depth in terms of how the numbers used in the OP are flawed and misleading.

1. They might have an impact but i'm doubtful that it would be a meaningful impact. The majority of suicides don't happen with a gun anyway and those that truly want to end their lives can and will find other ways to do so.

2. Source? Also were those people doing anything wrong? Because you have a gun and got shot by a cop does not mean that you were doing anything bad.

3. Car accidents don't happen if there are no cars. Home burning accidents dont happen if there are no stoves and microwaves. Knife accidents don't happen if there are no knives. That argument is implying that to stop accidents you just ban the cause which imo is not a good solution.

Looking at your third edit the inconsistency with the numbers might come from you and the guy that made the post using sources relating to different years.

the-pi-guy said:
jason1637 said:

Uh I had a response but i closed the tab by accident so i'll try to retype the major points of my reply again.

1. Sucide is more af a mental health issue than a gun issue. There are lots of countries with high sucide rates and strict gun laws. Also there are other ways people off themselves. Using a gun accounts for less than 50% of suicidal deaths.

2. There is no evidence to support that claim. From what i've seen most police shootings have to do with racial bias against a minority than them actually having a gun.

3. Accidents happen. Car accidents, homes burnings are accidents that happen but aren't considered to eb a crisis.

4. The comparison was to show that there are other issues that can actually be considered a "crisis" that affect way more people than gun violence.

5. 70k is still a pretty small amount percentage wise and yeah they might be higher than Vietnam or 9/11 but the number of people that died in Vietnam is a pretty small amount. More people died in two year than they did in one day in 9/11 makes sense. If you compare car deaths or other types of deaths in the last two years im sure they will surpass the vietnam and 9/11 totals.

6. I was not aware that those number were wrong. The sources looked pretty legit. if it's 11-14k those numbers are still relatively small and gun violence has decreased since 2017 anyway.

2.)  There is a host of issues that work together.  Better training of police departments and more accountability would go a long way, but yes there is actually evidence of that, because it works that way in other countries.  

3.)  Yes, and a lot of work still goes towards preventing accidents.  From campaigns dedicated to focusing on the road and not a cell phone, to campaigns to prevent drunk driving.  No one says "these are accidents, nothing we can do here".  

4.) Of course there are, but not all of those are easily as preventable.  

2. These proposals would help reduce police shootings. Also I was aking if there was evidence that most police shootings happen when the victim is armed.

3. AD campaigns to promote safe gun usage and carry are a thing but they should be more common/widespread.

4. There are also cases where law enforcement can prevent shootings but decide not to act. In general there are ways to prevent gun violence that don't involve taking away peoples rights.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
jason1637 said:

4. There are also cases where law enforcement can prevent shootings but decide not to act. In general there are ways to prevent gun violence that don't involve taking away peoples rights.

I'm just going to respond to this one.

Gun control doesn't have to be taking away from someone's rights.  In some, it just means there's more diligence to ensuring that guns are being taken care of properly.  

There's no concern about the rights to a car.  No one is worried about those getting taken away or getting the rights infringed on, and yet there are some strict requirements on driving cars, and manufacturing cars.  

I understand that some gun control measures are reasonable but some legislation that ban automatics or make the age 21+ are intrusive to peoples rights. Stuff like open carry with some restrictions or police checks that you mentioned earlier in the threads make sense.



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

He does get a pass to a degree because of the fact you won't talk about whether or not a change in his tone or "care" in his messages will make a difference, since for the most part it likely won't. Why should Trump act the way some of his critics think he should, if those critics wouldn't change even if Trump did? There are times when the msm or his opposition start something, and lie about him, and yet some people turn a blind eye to it. I don't like it when he clearly lies, but if him telling the truth won't change the lies told about him, why should he change if his opposition won't? Putting up the white flag knowing the enemy is just going to walk up and stab you anyway would be beyond pathetic and un-American.

If you're going as far to say that Trump needs to basically become a Democrat like President in order to get his opposition to change as well, what you're asking for is to undo an election by the people, which is not how America operates, and those that can't stand to live with it, are free to try another country. Good luck to them, because they're going to need all of it.

First of all, of course it would make a difference.

Second of all, if not constantly lying through your ass is considered a quality of a "Democrat like President", I think you've got some big problems on the right...

And all this macho "he's just sticking up for himself and fighting the good fight" stuff is nonsense. Again, Trump doesn't get to play the fragile child while being incredibly incendiary. He gives up his right to play the "righteous indignation" card when he stokes shit every chance he gets and abandoned a moral platform on day zero.

These are nothing but shallow excuses and its incredibly transparent.

You still haven't answered the question by chance, so I can still only assume...



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

That's where this all started, with the misspelled tweet, so if you don't care about the tweet and story that goes with it, why bother arguing about it to then ask why anyone cares about it?

I kind of assumed when you pointed out it could be that it's simply a spelling mistake, and I should believe he simply made a spelling mistake, which shows me who he is, which would be an idiot, that was the point. Sorry for getting that all mixed up. I was a little dehydrated and I chose the red juice over the blue kool aid that time. Bad decision on my part..

I never said Trump is perfect, and just like you and I, everyone makes mistakes and thinks and says dumb things at least every so often. Thank goodness the language listening and penalty devices haven't been installed everywhere quite yet. Demolition man needs to remain a movie and not become prophecy.

Instant communication to everyone in the country and potentially the world is dumb? You would rather have the msm try and get you the facts, so you can figure out who's facts are correct or more worthy and who's are not? Were prior Presidential radio or TV announcements dumb? Would they have become dumb if they were held more often? If they said dumb things would it be ok since they were live?

I would guess why people have a hard time staying around him has to do with the headaches from the outside. It's why after I left home I rarely see my mother anymore because she's the type of person to go after you consistently and put you down or flat out destroy you (if she really doesn't like you), just because she isn't getting her way, no matter how minuscule or nonsensical her idea or reason may be. Not a surprise though since we rarely ever saw grandma because she was the exact same way, and treated my mother just as bad, even right in front of us. Dad doesn't like to spend much time around me either simply because if mom finds out she'll make his life hell for an extended period of time. Same old, same old lefty tactics. Mom mostly dislikes Trump and is always watching the msm btw. Could you have guessed?

Thanks for the compliment.

Instant communication to the public and the world is great but when has the president ever had a problem doing that.  Instant communication to the world when you do not take the time to correct simple spelling and grammar mistakes is stupid.  This is what makes Trump stupid and disrespect the office that he is in.  He tweets like he is your average Joe but he is not, he is President of the United States.  Nothing he says in public is unofficial.  Him tweeting anything that comes to his mind without properly vetting it is stupid.  What Trump says has direct effect because he is President.  Even you should realize this very simple concept.  Policy through Twitter is stupid if not vetted correctly.  This is why a lot of what he has tweeted people scramble to try to implement and then it goes nowhere because most times he is too stupid to even know how his office works, what can be accomplish and what steps it takes to get it done.  This has been recorded countless times in Trump administration and is why it's mostly dysfunctional.

People have a hard time staying around Trump administration not because of the headaches outside but instead of the current management.  When people believe in the upper management they are more than willing to work in a stressful environment to accomplish goals they believe in but when people do not believe in the current leadership, they are quick to get the hell out.  You would like to make it all about everyone else besides Trump  but there is really only one place to look first and that is Trump.  The current people do not have trust in him, his policy and his leadership and they probably all believe his is a complete idiot.  The people that stay are the ones who believe they can manipulate the idiot or just stay under the radar until he is gone.  Either way as time continue to go on we continue to see how much of an idiot Trump is and even you will run out of excuses before his time is up.

So everyone who has clout in the world who tweets something they shouldn't have, or misspells, is an idiot and disrespectful? Got it.

Seen as relatable to the average joe which is what made him the Prez, so why would he change?

When was the last time America has implemented something or started an actual war through Twitter?

How many people joined the administration and left on their own accord very quickly? 

Why hasn't anyone who's stayed been able to manipulate him into correctly using Twitter?

Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

He does get a pass to a degree because of the fact you won't talk about whether or not a change in his tone or "care" in his messages will make a difference, since for the most part it likely won't. Why should Trump act the way some of his critics think he should, if those critics wouldn't change even if Trump did? There are times when the msm or his opposition start something, and lie about him, and yet some people turn a blind eye to it. I don't like it when he clearly lies, but if him telling the truth won't change the lies told about him, why should he change if his opposition won't? Putting up the white flag knowing the enemy is just going to walk up and stab you anyway would be beyond pathetic and un-American.

If you're going as far to say that Trump needs to basically become a Democrat like President in order to get his opposition to change as well, what you're asking for is to undo an election by the people, which is not how America operates, and those that can't stand to live with it, are free to try another country. Good luck to them, because they're going to need all of it.

So are you saying that Trump should lie to the people because msn or someone else lies about him.  Lol, nothing puts a smile on my face when you go to such lengths to make even the dumbest thing Trump does ok.  So Trump lies because others lie about him.  So Trump steals because others steal from him.  We can just blame everything Trump does that is negative, stupid or illegal because others do it to him first.  

So Trump shouldn't correct his grammar or spelling mistakes, he should not take the time or care to check his information because people are bad to him.  It's always someone else fault instead of Trump, I mean really do you even hear yourself.

No, I'm saying if Trump changing who he is won't change his opposition, then why should he change? In fact, if he did change to try and fit their ideal Prez, knowing they wouldn't change anyway, it would guarantee a single term and that's it.

You asked what I was saying, and then ended with "do you even hear yourself", based on what you perceived my points to mean, without knowing my response. I was told something about assuming not to long ago...



Machiavellian said:
RolStoppable said:

Oh no, someone is realizing that Eric wears a T-shirt.

Wrong, Eric has his T-shirt.

Lol, very True, I thought about that last statement again and I totally forgot that there will never be a time Eric runs out of excuses for anything Trump does.  I still believe he is trolling but it's fun to see another analogy or apology he thinks up.

Hard to disagree here. I mean, wouldn't it be nice if the 'climate scientists' just stopped telling those 'carbon apologists' who keep pumping harmful CO2 into the atmosphere to stop? The more harmful CO2 the better right? If only the deplorables could exhale unicorn farts. Then the world could truly be magic.

This one's only for special occasions.



EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

Instant communication to the public and the world is great but when has the president ever had a problem doing that.  Instant communication to the world when you do not take the time to correct simple spelling and grammar mistakes is stupid.  This is what makes Trump stupid and disrespect the office that he is in.  He tweets like he is your average Joe but he is not, he is President of the United States.  Nothing he says in public is unofficial.  Him tweeting anything that comes to his mind without properly vetting it is stupid.  What Trump says has direct effect because he is President.  Even you should realize this very simple concept.  Policy through Twitter is stupid if not vetted correctly.  This is why a lot of what he has tweeted people scramble to try to implement and then it goes nowhere because most times he is too stupid to even know how his office works, what can be accomplish and what steps it takes to get it done.  This has been recorded countless times in Trump administration and is why it's mostly dysfunctional.

People have a hard time staying around Trump administration not because of the headaches outside but instead of the current management.  When people believe in the upper management they are more than willing to work in a stressful environment to accomplish goals they believe in but when people do not believe in the current leadership, they are quick to get the hell out.  You would like to make it all about everyone else besides Trump  but there is really only one place to look first and that is Trump.  The current people do not have trust in him, his policy and his leadership and they probably all believe his is a complete idiot.  The people that stay are the ones who believe they can manipulate the idiot or just stay under the radar until he is gone.  Either way as time continue to go on we continue to see how much of an idiot Trump is and even you will run out of excuses before his time is up.

So everyone who has clout in the world who tweets something they shouldn't have, or misspells, is an idiot and disrespectful? Got it.

Yes, they are.  People every day get fired over tweets.  There is a story were a bunch of cops got put on leave over tweets.  Any person who are on the level of the President who communicates to the public who doesn't take the time to vet what they say would be considered an idiot if they have bad grammar and spelling errors all the time.  If the same person also shows their ignorance with misstatements incorrect information or just blatant lies then they would be considered an idiot.

Seen as relatable to the average joe which is what made him the Prez, so why would he change?

Yeah, why would he change if sounding and acting like an idiot was what he and you thought was the reason he became President I guess he would not change.  Lets see if this is actually true come the next election.

When was the last time America has implemented something or started an actual war through Twitter?

Not sure what you are talking about.  There has never been another President or even in a person in position of power that use Twitter like Trump. None have presented Policy through Twitter or diplomacy.  No other President would be that stupid and many international and national people has chastised Trump for doing so.  Even if another President would use Twitter for policy and diplomacy they probably would be smart enough to vet it first not throw out the random idiotic tweets making themselves look stupid.  Also if you are talking to the world and diplomatic entities, you would think the President to the US would take the time to correct his grammar and spelling.

How many people joined the administration and left on their own accord very quickly? 

Quickly, in one year, in 2 years, fired you name it who cares.  At the end of the day, some of Trump most trusted people are getting the hell out.  We can setup a thread on this topic along that would be fun. 

Why hasn't anyone who's stayed been able to manipulate him into correctly using Twitter?

Sorry but this is a dumb question, what does twitter have anything to do with someone manipulating Trump.  The 2 are not married together.  Who says anyone who does manipulate Trump cares about how he uses Twitter.

Machiavellian said:

So are you saying that Trump should lie to the people because msn or someone else lies about him.  Lol, nothing puts a smile on my face when you go to such lengths to make even the dumbest thing Trump does ok.  So Trump lies because others lie about him.  So Trump steals because others steal from him.  We can just blame everything Trump does that is negative, stupid or illegal because others do it to him first.  

So Trump shouldn't correct his grammar or spelling mistakes, he should not take the time or care to check his information because people are bad to him.  It's always someone else fault instead of Trump, I mean really do you even hear yourself.

No, I'm saying if Trump changing who he is won't change his opposition, then why should he change? In fact, if he did change to try and fit their ideal Prez, knowing they wouldn't change anyway, it would guarantee a single term and that's it.

You asked what I was saying, and then ended with "do you even hear yourself", based on what you perceived my points to mean, without knowing my response. I was told something about assuming not to long ago...

No what you are saying is that Trump should stay the incompetent real estate TV personality who lies every chance he gets instead of evolving into a proper leader of the country.  Who cares if Trump changes his opposition, people would just like for him to to not sound and act like an idiot every chance he gets.  Would it be so much trouble for him to take the time to check his spelling and grammar when communicating to the public and the world.  Would it be so much trouble for him to take the time to check his information before throwing out some random dumb opinion he has to take back because it was stupid.  

If Changing to you mean that Trump actually do what pretty much ever half decent competent leader does then I guess that is to much to ask.

You are correct, Trump should never change, never grow into the roll of being President of the United States but continue to be the total griefer he was and still is.  He should continue to lie every chance he gets, say and do dumb stuff to embarrass the US and show the complete ignorance of the office and how it works.  One thing for sure, you do not have to worry about Trump changing any of his current flaws or behavior.  He wallows in it and you accept it like a prize bull.

I am not assuming and never used the word if you noticed.