ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

The only thing I can think of that is actually in favor of trump is the ban on bump stocks.

Why should Trump take the credit though? It was passed by the congress. Because he didn't veto it? Don't fall for the Smoke and Mirrors.

he was still in favor of it so...

"

faerwin wrote:

he was still in favor of it so...

So did Obama. :P Obama administration and officials concluded that new restrictions would need to be approved by Congress. The idea is that gun advocates could attempt to overturn the ban through the supreme court. It is a discrete and subtle save by congressional republicans. The bump stocks ban legislation passed through congress made it permanent, and not subject to future regulatory changes. Thank the congress for it.

"

faerwin wrote:

The only thing I can think of that is actually in favor of trump is the ban on bump stocks.

All a "bump stock" is, is a device that redirects recoil energy into another press of the trigger of a rifle. A brief walk in a typical rural woodlands would likely discover a branch or two on the ground that, simply positioned between the bicep/shoulder and trigger of a rifle, would serve the purpose functionally, if a bit uncomfortably; the only loss is ergonomic.

A bump stock ban, in a world where semiautomatic rifles are legal, is functionally an attempt to ban sticks about half a meter long. It won't ever work; bump stocks will simply be marketed under a different purpose (a la "bath salts") and continue to be sold anyway. A ban on sticks that makes it into law cannot possibly be effective.

As I was saying, appearance over reality. He (and/or Congressional Republicans, if you insist on the deathflower perspective) gave you something you think is valuable, but in truth it's completely worthless. Fool's gold.

Just to add, we rednecks have been using beltloops for ages to do the same thing as a bump stock.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So by what moral standard do you claim that those dispatched to a sovereign nation to kill its populace if it doesn't bend to the empire's appointed provincial government, these mercenaries, are worthy of special protection?

By the same moral standard, that life itself has a value, and simply because one side is on the morally 'wrong' side of a war, doesn't give you free reign to murder them, when you have a choice.

Once, Assange decided to publish names and other sensitive information, it went beyond justice, and straight into manslaughter.

Just like how police officers aren't allowed to disclose information about the location of the families of drug dealers and murders.

You aren't allowed to present information that will most likely harm others, and by extension otherwise innocent people just because of the wrong actions of a person, or people.

I mean if the Iraq's had gotten the information, and published the information it'd be different, because they are defending their home.

But Assange was neither in the military nor actively involved in the conflict.

He simply added to the death count, which was not the right thing to do. And should be punishable by the law.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Allow me to choke down a quip about children in cages for a moment, and ask: what policies has Trump implemented that protect people? Maybe I just don't hear about it from my bubble, but I legitimately do not know what you're talking about on this one.

-S.178 Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act
-H.R.1306 - Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act
-S.1766 - SAFER Act of 2017 (Sexual Assault)
-S.1532 - No Human Trafficking on Our Roads Act
-H.R.4374 - To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war, and for other purposes.
-H.R.304 - Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017
-S.782 - PROTECT Our Children Act of 2017
-H.R.3823 - Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017
H.R. 657 - "Follow the Rules Act" (protects whistle blowers)

So, besides doing the common sense stuff, like protecting sexual assault victims, indian tribes, elderly, medical care, children, and disasters.

He also has policies aimed towards protecting whistle blowers, for acting against federal regulations, if they feel they are doing something morally wrong.

He also does a few other just generally good policies like Executive Order 13779, which gives more money to historically black colleges, and 13828, which is aimed at poverty.

Also, on the note of caged children.

The appalling conditions are the result of a lack of funding (housing), and procedures which requires DHS to hold immigrant families, till their filing date (either that or release them).

And all of this also happened under Obama, under similar circumstances. So, unless you want to claim Obama was a heartless fuck, you can't really complain about him doing it.

There isn't a good way to house all of them without risking the children's safety (abduction and child trafficking) other then keeping people from coming in in the first place.

Or, I guess releasing them into Sanctuary Cities, lol.

What Trump implemented was called the zero tolerance policy. When people tried to come across the border with kids, they would be arrested and the kids were permanently taken away. I say permanently taken away because they were put into the data base system as unattended and the parents as unknown. There was no intent of ever returning the kids to the parents. The courts stopped this practice. This was not the practice prior to the Trump implementation of their zero tolerance policy.

"

Turtledove wrote:

What Trump implemented was called the zero tolerance policy. When people tried to come across the border with kids, they would be arrested and the kids were permanently taken away. I say permanently taken away because they were put into the data base system as unattended and the parents as unknown. There was no intent of ever returning the kids to the parents. The courts stopped this practice. This was not the practice prior to the Trump implementation of their zero tolerance policy.

The zero tolerance policy was also only in effect for less than 3 months, it wasn't the official policy position of the administration for most of Trump's time in office.

That position for most of that time, has always been a family separation policy, which began in Obama/Bush administration.

And this is because there were many cases, where separating families significantly reduced the amount of migrants coming into those areas. And by reducing migrants coming in, you reduce the number of people getting hurt or raped on the way to the border. Again, a morally good thing to do.

Arguably, you can say Trump did something bad, in this instance. And that it was a huge oversight to not include a procedure to reunite children. Honestly, it seems like they just forgot about it.

But you are stretching the truth if you saying there was never any intent to return the children to their parents, and by that implication a malicious intent of Trump to harm people.

If that was the case, Trump would have been charged with humanitarian crimes, which he was not.

There is a difference here. And its why we have a court of law.

Cher is using white supremacist dog-whistles like "taking care of its own". I'm literally shaking rn.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

What Trump implemented was called the zero tolerance policy. When people tried to come across the border with kids, they would be arrested and the kids were permanently taken away. I say permanently taken away because they were put into the data base system as unattended and the parents as unknown. There was no intent of ever returning the kids to the parents. The courts stopped this practice. This was not the practice prior to the Trump implementation of their zero tolerance policy.

The zero tolerance policy was also only in effect for less than 3 months, it wasn't the official policy position of the administration for most of Trump's time in office.

That position for most of that time, has always been a family separation policy, which began in Obama/Bush administration.

And this is because there were many cases, where separating families significantly reduced the amount of migrants coming into those areas. And by reducing migrants coming in, you reduce the number of people getting hurt or raped on the way to the border. Again, a morally good thing to do.

Arguably, you can say Trump did something bad, in this instance. And that it was a huge oversight to not include a procedure to reunite children. Honestly, it seems like they just forgot about it.

But you are stretching the truth if you saying there was never any intent to return the children to their parents, and by that implication a malicious intent of Trump to harm people.

If that was the case, Trump would have been charged with humanitarian crimes, which he was not.

There is a difference here. And its why we have a court of law.

See, this is the kind of Whataboutism that I'm sick of.

The way the US treated immigrant families during the Obama administration was unacceptable. The way the US treated immigrant families during the Trump administration was unacceptable.

Yes, the system then and now is compartmentalized in such a way where one agency puts restrictions on another and the Executive Branch points the finger at the Judicial who points it at Congress who points it... and so on. That's why I said "the US," not INS, not ICE, not Congress, not the courts. I don't know exactly who is to blame, or how much they are.

The point is that the US is failing in it's treatment of immigrant families, and has been failing for quite some time now. And all these excuses from partisans on both the right and the left are shamefully childish. What we need is people to take responsibility and fix it, not shift the blame to their political opponents as a way of negating their obligation. Every American worth their salt should view this problem as their fault, as their failure. This is never going to get fixed by chickenshits who see a crisis as an opportunity to villainize their political opponents.