The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[JB Lions]

One thing to criticize someone, it's another to it breathlessly every day no matter how irrational the accusations.

It's another to defend somebody everyday who you think is a horrible person. And if the accusations are irrational, take them apart. Don't run from the challenge.

And it happens everyday because, people thought it was bright to put somebody in like Trump. If Kasich was President, this thread wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now.

Crazy right. Laura Loomer - https://twitter.com/search?q="Laura Loomer"&src=tren&lang=en

Laura Loomer has walked off the stream, on her way to Pelosi's house. One of her crew is claiming that it's legal to jump the fence because there were no "no trespassing" signs.

 

[mr-x]

Crazy right. Laura Loomer - https://twitter.com/search?q="Laura Loomer"&src=tren&lang=en

Laura Loomer has walked off the stream, on her way to Pelosi's house. One of her crew is claiming that it's legal to jump the fence because there were no "no trespassing" signs. I don't know about that!

Your comparing yourself to "crazy" Luara Loomer? Also calling her crazy and mocking her for stepping in a creek? Was it a fence or a wall? Are fences immoral?

 

[JB Lions]

Your comparing yourself to "crazy" Luara Loomer? Also calling her crazy and mocking her for stepping in a creek? Was it a fence or a wall? Are fences immoral?

When you think posting fast makes a good reply, instead of actually reading I have no idea what you're even referring to. Stepping in a creek? What? Stream meaning internet stream/video, not body of water

You replied in less than a minute to my post, instead of actually reading. I have given up that you'll learn to read before you post.

 

[JB Lions]

Right after the story Trump wants to keep the Mueller report from going public:

Trump attorney general pick Barr says wants Mueller report made public, won't allow improper interference

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...g-pick-says-mueller-report-public/2569214002/

------------
Trump lashed out at Mulvaney during meeting with Democrats

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/trump-mulvaney-meeting/index.html

"Stop, stop, just stop -- What are you doing? You're f---ing it all up, Mick," Trump said, according to the official who was in the room for the negotiations.

haha, he can't even pick people who think well help him. He thinks they're all going to just fold to him.

---------------------------------------

Think she pretty much nailed him. She was spot on.

 

[.X.]

Well that’s a problem...

The rapid firing guy was impressive, but he’s an outlier. Weapons designed to shoot a large # of rounds in a short period of time enable the average person to do a lot of damage.

Moving the goal posts that define assault weapons is also a problem.

I’d be open to the idea of a special license for some civilians to have them, with more stringent requirements for ownership. Details tbd, but if you can convincingly demonstrate that you have a reason to have one and that you have a very low probability of ever being a danger to anyone with it I’d probably be ok with that.

Like any other type of security, nothing is 100%. But your success rate improves if you remove the low hanging fruit and make it more difficult.

The NRA has been very quiet lately. Too busy worrying about Maria Butina’s guilty plea and whether they’ll have to come up with sources for that $30 million they gave 45’s 2016 campaign.

Agreed, a special license to obtain a assault weapon would be a good thing, that is not infringing on anyone’s rights, so the NRA shouldn’t even contest that being a law.

 

[.X.]

Those articles are less than a year old.

My point is, virtually none of the prohibited people that attempt to buy "legally" by going through "the process" are being prosecuted for it. It seems 10-21% of those people then go on to commit crimes involving guns.

Good point.

And the same thing applies to illegal immigrants that are already in the US, federal authorities are not seeking, arresting illegal immigrants either, and haven’t been for .decades, the last thing we really need to spend 500k on is a wall, being as things are already like they are

I think local and state law enforcement agencies are told not to interfere with illegal immigration.

I think 500k could go towards better screening of gun buyers, and perhaps making it law to apply for a permit to be in possession of a assault rifle or firearm.

Get some peace on the streets, and I highly doubt it would cost a half billion dollars to accomplish that

 

[mr-x]

Not a day ending in Y without JB sharing his homoerotic Trump collection.

 

[mr-x]

Hope this doesn't offend people who think exposing / talking about child exploitation is actually worst than child exploitation.

Planned Parenthood is required by law to report child sexual abuse, but it routinely covers up these crimes. On this #HumanTraffickingAwarenessMonth, watch as a Planned Parenthood manager aids a child sex trafficking ring.
https://twitter.com/LiveAction/status/1084842097985884161

This video was banned by YouTube.

 

[mr-x]

Booze kills TWICE as many people each year as guns, but I don't see a lot of people clamoring to add any more laws restricting it...

Americans Are Now More Likely To Die From An Opioid Overdose Than In A Car Crash
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42172/americans-are-now-more-likely-die-opioid-overdose-emily-zanotti

Politicians focus on headlines. Stats, reasoning goes out the window.

 

[mr-x]

You mean you went back and edited your post after I replied. I don't know why you think that makes you look smart but the apple dumpling gang like it so I'll let it be.

When you think posting fast makes a good reply, instead of actually reading I have no idea what you're even referring to. Stepping in a creek? What? Stream meaning internet stream/video, not body of water

You replied in less than a minute to my post, instead of actually reading. I have given up that you'll learn to read before you post.

 

[JB Lions]

You mean you went back and edited your post after I replied. I don't know why you think that makes you look smart but the apple dumpling gang like it so I'll let it be.

You'll let it be because it would be you lying again. I didn't edit anything about Laura Loomer, I added the Kasich stuff, which you didn't reply to, so it doesn't matter.

That's why we call you lying johnny.

John, it's actually what you're known for. You are aware people can simply scroll up and look?

 

[mr-x]

You'll let it be because it would be you lying again. I didn't edit anything about Laura Loomer, I added the Kasich stuff, which you didn't reply to, so it doesn't matter.

That's why we call you lying johnny.

 

[JB Lions]

Right after the story Trump wants to keep the Mueller report from going public:

Trump attorney general pick Barr says wants Mueller report made public, won't allow improper interference

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...g-pick-says-mueller-report-public/2569214002/

This guy Barr has a Senate confirmation hearing today, Tuesday.

"Attorney general nominee William Barr's Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday is expected to be a highly charged affair that's sure to test his opinion of just how powerful a president -- in this case, Donald Trump -- is."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/donald-trump-william-barr-attorney-general/index.html

was just reading this other story:

Barr sent or discussed controversial memo with Trump lawyers

"Attorney General nominee William Barr shared a controversial memo last year with nearly all of President Donald Trump's lawyers concluding that an aspect of special counsel Robert Mueller's case could be "fatally misconceived," Barr acknowledged Monday."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/politics/barr-mueller-letter/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2019-01-15T07:54:25

Then of course, remember Feb 7. Cohen testimony.

 

[JB Lions]

Up late working on something, saw NATO trending at 4 in the morning.

New: Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO several times in 2018. This would hand a massive victory to Putin.
ashar Ali ‏Verified account @yashar

https://twitter.com/search?q=NATO&src=tren&lang=en

Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia

"Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html

You know what's coming...........

 

[Domainace]

And the same thing applies to illegal immigrants that are already in the US, federal authorities are not seeking, arresting illegal immigrants either, and haven’t been for .decades, the last thing we really need to spend 500k on is a wall, being as things are already like they are

I think local and state law enforcement agencies are told not to interfere with illegal immigration.

This is the thing. There are already laws in place, and they are not being enforced. So what's the solution? More laws! Or a wall...

We saw this with the slew of laws passed after 9/11 that allow the government to do pretty much whatever they want. The excuse was that they needed more power to investigate terrorists. The facts were that they had plenty of information on the 9/11 plotters that they basically just ignored. More information will only worsen the problem.

But new laws do help the government extend its powers. With each new set of laws, and whole new class of criminals can be created, until virtually anyone can be rightly accused of breaking federals laws. This comes in handy when they want to silence someone or punish them for their political activities.

 

[enlytend]

I take it Melania doesn’t cook? lol

Cooks are furloughed, but really - how cheap can you get? Room temperature Big Macs and cold fries on a silver platter. Nice.

(Not like it would be hard to find a nice place in DC that caters and is hurting for business because of his government shutdown...)

 

[briguy]

Treading lightly here.. can be any goverment. the mother-in-law made me laugh.

 

[.X.]

This is the thing. There are already laws in place, and they are not being enforced. So what's the solution? More laws! Or a wall...

We saw this with the slew of laws passed after 9/11 that allow the government to do pretty much whatever they want. The excuse was that they needed more power to investigate terrorists. The facts were that they had plenty of information on the 9/11 plotters that they basically just ignored. More information will only worsen the problem.

But new laws do help the government extend its powers. With each new set of laws, and whole new class of criminals can be created, until virtually anyone can be rightly accused of breaking federals laws. This comes in handy when they want to silence someone or punish them for their political activities.

Just by judging what I know in my state , let state and local law enforcement enforce the laws that apply to federal offenses such as illegal immigration and federal hand gun laws and ect, if our state and local police are able to make arrests on a large scale
, then I think we would see results instead of a bunch of talk.

 

[mr-x]

Up late working on something,...You know what's coming...........

More of your homoerotic porn ?

 

[mr-x]

Republican Steve King STRIPPED of committee assignments for white supremacy comments.

 

[mr-x]

You'll let it be because it would be you lying again. I didn't edit anything about Laura Loomer, I added the Kasich stuff, which you didn't reply to, so it doesn't matter.



John, it's actually what you're known for. You are aware people can simply scroll up and look?

Yeah, and they'll find you making things up and lying you ass off every time you loose an argument. To be fair, sometimes we call you johnny lying.

When you were a child, did you think you'd grow and share gay porn on the Internet for fun?

 

[mr-x]

Headline of the day:

Laura Loomer Brings Illegal Immigrants To Nancy Pelosi's Home. Pelosi Has Police Remove Them.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/4217...illegal-immigrants-nancy-amanda-prestigiacomo

 

[mr-x]

Va. Governor’s Gun-Confiscation Proposal
https://freebeacon.com/issues/va-go...-proposal-could-affect-millions-of-residents/

@TestCase made a great argument for the #2A. SCOTUS has been mixed about state rights to control firearms.

This proposed law as explained would eliminate almost every commonly owned semi-automatic firearm. I don't know if that would pass SCOTUS but it should be almost impossible to get through VA state's legislature.

 

[TestCase]

Va. Governor’s Gun-Confiscation Proposal
https://freebeacon.com/issues/va-go...-proposal-could-affect-millions-of-residents/

@TestCase made a great argument for the #2A. SCOTUS has been mixed about state rights to control firearms.

This proposed law as explained would eliminate almost every commonly owned semi-automatic firearm. I don't know if that would pass SCOTUS but it should be almost impossible to get through VA state's legislature.

From the article,

While short on details, Northam's announcement [Northam is the VA governor] said part of the proposed gun-control package would ban the "sale, purchase, possession, and transport" of undefined "assault firearms" including "any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition." Since the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns and rifles in the state are sold standard with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, it appears the proposed ban would affect most firearms on sale in Virginia. Additionally, the announcement of the ban did not include mention of any grandfathering to allow what NSSF estimated would be millions of Virginians who already own such firearms to legally keep them.

Let me quote myself...

If that were only true...

The problem is that with each new "sensible gun law", "they" then come back and try to pass additional "sensible laws" that restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners even further. Just ask any law abiding gun owner in NY, CA, NJ, MD, etc... Every year additional restrictive laws are written, with many of them passing and going in to law.

There are probably several thousand Californians (at least) that have no idea they are now criminals because of laws that went in to effect the last couple of years even though they and their guns were perfectly legal 18 months ago -- and had been legal for XX+ years prior.

Criminals and crazy people do not abide by the word of law, so how exactly will restricting the rights of law abiding citizens prevent the crazies and criminals from having and using guns?

 

[enlytend]

That law in VA sounds poorly written and not so sensible to me.

@TestCase How would you approach the school shootings / mass shootings issue? How would you prevent the next Las Vegas, Parkland, Sandy Hook or Sutherland Springs? How would you minimize the threat?