:tup:
I donāt see that happening in this thread. There is a lot of good discussion going on and most people are not showing nearly as much bias as you are. Try to come back down to a reasonable level with us. Letās discuss the actual facts from reliable sources and view things from an objective standpoint. (For reliable sources, this does not include Trumpās mouth.)
Overall, Iām impressed with the discussion in this thread. There is certainly still some projecting going on but the messages are still getting through. :tup:
Remember boys & girls (& any of the other 27 different genders I might be forgetting)ā¦
Is that what Trump is basically doing? Okay, so in 90 days we should have a revamped system that is more efficient and effective at handling immigrants and refugees. Iāll keep my fingers crossed that this temporary ban actually has a reasonable and achievable end goal, though it seems to be more of a kneejerk reaction sourced from fear mongering and baseless opinions, especially with how crassly it was implemented. Maybe if Saudi Arabia had been includedā¦
I wonāt pretend to even begin to understand the hardships you went through, as I have not experienced them. Just like how I will not try to understanding what the current refugees are going through. Intelligence, empathy, and understanding can actually all work together.
ā¦ speaking of reasons people donāt want to give Trump a chance.
The people heās surrounded himself with donāt exactly lend themselves to the idea that this is some sort of logic or intellectually driven Presidency.
What ban from Obama are you talking about here?
Thatās why I worded that to not say that. Revamping a fraction of the system not the whole thing. The vetting process for a particular area of the world still falls under the whole immigration system. The USCIS has a system in place for every single country in the world, some being different from others. So if the system has branches A,B,C,D with subsets of branches, it is not unreasonable for him to to go in and suspend a branch of it to rework it. What he did went through the proper channels and was found to be legal and within parameters of the law by the DOJ. Just because the head decided to be political doesnāt make that a lie.
So aside from Conway, who makes this presidency nonlogical or intellectually driven? So are you prepared to say that Obama was nothing but a far left extremist socialist? By surrounding himself with people like Mark Lloyd, Valerie Jarett, David Axelrod, Cecilia Munoz, Melody Barnes, Al Sharpton etc. are they beacons of logic and intellect? Iām not the biggest Trump fan, but most of his cabinet picks I agree with.
When I said Obama ban I meant the 2011 suspension. Lets not forget, the recommendation for these actions are a layover from the Obama administration that he never acted on. The issue here is that Trump came in having promised to do something, and pulled the trigger on the recommendations before getting everything prepared 100% so the implementation goes smoothly. Still that doesnāt warrant the media going apeshit, calling what he is doing unlawful, reporting on it as if he is just signing executive orders without looking if itās legal or not etc. We all know that most of this is just rhetoric and at the end of the day no matter what Trump does, the media will find and report the negatives. If he goes and starts giving out meals to homeless people in Chicago, they will say that there are many more homeless in NYC and he should be there instead. At the end of the day the issue for me is that I donāt trust NPR, CNN, BBC etc to give me straight facts, neither do I trust Breitbart or Fox. Everybody is pushing their propaganda and what I want to see is more of as Elon Musk said āReading the source material is better than reading other peopleās opinions about the source materialā and essentially the majority of reporting today is not the source material but peoples interpretation of it. I started distrusting mainstream news like NPR etc. back when the Ukraine Russia conflict started. Their reporting on it was shit. I have family living there so I know a thing or two. Same as things like the idea that Putin is only in power because he rigs elections. Heās in power because the Russian people want him to be in power. Hearing political pundits trying to explain the situation all the time made me sick. If you do not understand the culture of a people, you have no reason reporting on it as if itās fact or the way it is. Before you begin, say that the following is āMy interpretation of the eventsā.
Btw I think Alex Jones is a kook 
back to policyā¦
today a few sketchy EOās were signed.
removing an EO to prevent mentally ill from owning guns and something about coal plants being able to dump waste water?
i dont want to do any due diligenceā¦ but lets talk about it.
Oh, and Iran is about to become much more of a thing.
I canāt speak for the guns issue. But the Stream Protection Rule I know a bit about. And it wasnāt dumped by EO, but by congress.
Firstly, saying the coal mines can now dump whatever waste into waterways is fake news. Congress has NOT done anything to repeal the Clean Water Act which is still the law and requires any discharge to be permitted. So if youāre dumping mining waste into a stream without first getting the governmentās approval, youāre breaking the law.
The issue with the Stream Protection Rule was that it built on the CWA and added some things that were arguably kill shots for some coal companies and didnāt take into account different geology in different states. Basically over-regulation, redundancy and a pinch of stupidity.
Hereās a Democrat talking shit about the Stream Protection Rule:
Shout out to @JayS for letting me argue with random people on his FB today, I sincerely enjoyed a good debate with some liberal ladies. :tup:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
oh man i need to get on thisā¦ beter if theyāre cuter like @tpgsrās friends
what is up with thisā¦ again i dont feel like reading. can some of you smart people tell me what my opinion should be on this
HIPAA in full effect. The govāt should have no interest in your health lifeā¦
Scenario, your wife leaves you and takes the kids and the houseā¦ youāre barely making ends meet because of the child support/alimonyā¦
starts affecting your workā¦so you see your doctorā¦he sayās youāre depressed, and prescribes you a low dose anti depressant to lift you up a bit.
Next thing you know, ATF is busting down your door and removing all your firearms from your possession.
:tup:
Rose is awesome. Tracy however would import all of South America here if it was up to her. She didnāt appreciate when I called her out on the fact that the real reason sheās so anti wall is that sheās for allowing massive immigration and knows the wall will greatly slow the illegals that sheās done with looking the other way on because she thinks we should be letting them all in anyway.
Hey look, more fake news:
Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.
āThe House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe,ā Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 6- and 7-year-olds and six adults.
(^^^ Bingās link)
The rule restricts gun sales to the mentally ill, BUT they use as an example (Sandy Hook) where a mentally ill person didnāt buy any guns, lol. Good job NPR! 
Theyāre not saying in anyway it would have prevented Sandy Hook, theyāre just saying she represents the district where it happened.
How is that fake news?
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
The rule repeal was for a rule for background checks for Social Security recipients who are deemed mentally disabled to the point that theyāre incapable of managing their own affairs (assigned a rep Payee , for example), It doesnāt even ultimately prevent them from getting a weapon, since they can apply for an exemption. Anyone affected would have been notified in advance, and given an opportunity to apply for an exemption.
It has nothing to do with the situation you outlined.
Hereās the actual text of the amendment.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007
.
Where āitā happened. The topic at hand (the āitā) is mentally ill people buying guns. āItā did NOT happen in her district.
Here Iāll simplify further:
ā¦ Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Illā¦
ā¦ it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearmsā¦
ā¦ Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20ā¦
Theyāre conflating the issues. Yes he was mentally ill, but this rule wouldnāt have prevented him from committing the act because he didnāt buy any guns. However itās written in such a way that writer wants you to infer Newtown could have been prevented had this rule been in place. Not true.
I didnāt read the same implication as you did. I can see the implication if you ignore the other significant parts of the article, like the part where it actually explain what the purpose of the revoked rule was. āthe measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBIās National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.ā
It follows the Esty quote with a response from a republican, and from ACLU as a counterpoint, āThis is a slap in the face for those in the disabled community because it paints all those who suffer from mental disorders with the same broad brush,ā said Republican House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, as reported by USA Today. āIt assumes that simply because an individual suffers from a mental condition, that individual is unfit to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.ā
Point, and 2 counterpoints.
I think you have a stronger point on the implication if they described Lanza as a āmentally ill social security recipientā, but I think the implication you get is more from a cursory interpretation and your own bias, than the full context of the report.
Thereās nothing factually inaccurate about the report.
I see your point but Iām not arguing the facts are wrong, simply that facts without proper context are useless. Newtown in the context of this rule doesnāt fit.
Iād like the article more if they noted an example where this rule would have actually prevented a mass shooting.
We disagree here. Not sure I want to side track the topic right now, though.
Thatās a bit tin foil hat-ish but I see your point. How about instead of talking about how you think the government is over-reaching, we discuss alternative methods to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them. No more of this āOBAMA GONā TAKE MAH GUNSā shit. Like it or not, thereās an ACTUAL problem happening in the US.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
That doesnāt make it fake news. Misleading, yes. Fake, no. There are fact based implications. I read what youāre reading and Iām surprised to see it from NPR. But the constant cry of everything being fake news because it doesnāt fit Donnieās narrative is a bit tiring.
<- but with a smaller violin for The Donās hands.
I wish I had a friend on facebook that I could tag in posts to argue with liberals, I have one in particular that really loves to argue, its like his new purpose in life.