America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

Rynzo: do you really believe this?

To a respect yes. Both sides rarely agree on anything. Then they agree on something and we're all supposed to believe it.
They are as full of as much crap as Trump. I honestly believe they tell us what they want us to know. I watched an interesting montage of stations using the exact same fear mongering lines that turned into literally nothing.
They're all full of crap.

 

[Biggles]

To a respect yes. Both sides rarely agree on anything. Then they agree on something and we're all supposed to believe it.
They are as full of as much crap as Trump. I honestly believe they tell us what they want us to know. I watched an interesting montage of stations using the exact same fear mongering lines that turned into literally nothing.
They're all full of crap.

I think it's unfortunate that you feel that way. If they agree on something, do you not think that it's possible that they agree because it's true, rather than because "they're all full of crap"? I will say that reducing everything to crap may actually be Trump's strategy: repeating so many exaggerations, half-truths & outright lies about a wide variety of things, both important & trivial, that nobody believes anything any more.

I would put it this way: the "establishment" - the established way of things - is far from perfect. There are many problems: corruption, dishonesty, graft, & self-serving bureaucrats & politicians, but putting someone in charge who has had a history of corruption, cheating & lying in private life is not likely to make things better. What you are seeing is not someone "draining the swamp" - it's someone topping up the swamp with their own brand of muck.

 

[ryzno]

If they agree on something, do you not think that it's possible that they agree because it's true,

No, the establishment on both sides hate him, he was a life long Dem that turned Rep. When he switched the Dems dropped him like a hot potato and start to find anything they can to discredit him(where were they all those years when he was donating?). The Reps are just as fake accepting him with semi open arms.
He does what he has to do to get by, just like the rest of them/us.

Edit: I'll leave this here. I'm curious to see the responses.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ste...st-admit-that-this-is-a-successful-presidency

 

[huskeR32]

No, the establishment on both sides hate him, he was a life long Dem that turned Rep.

Nope. The first time he registered to vote, he registered Republican. He’s changed his party registration several times since then, and spent only eight years (2001-2009) registered as a Democrat. That’s hardly “life long.”

When he switched the Dems dropped him like a hot potato and start to find anything they can to discredit him(where were they all those years when he was donating?).

I doubt the Democrats really even noticed when he switched Republican in 2009, considering his donations to both parties until that point were essentially equal.

I’d imagine both parties spent “all those years when he was donating” noting that he donated to both sides, almost certainly for self-serving reasons, and therefore at the party level, never really gave much of a hoot what Donald thought or wanted.

Neither side would have needed to make any attempts to discredit him; he’s always managed to discredit himself pretty thoroughly.

Edit: I'll leave this here. I'm curious to see the responses.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ste...st-admit-that-this-is-a-successful-presidency

First thing I see is that he (unsurprisingly) didn’t provide a single source for his claims.

So naturally, when he says this...

In the evil populist "Trump's America," here's what happened to energy-related carbon emissions: In 2017, they fell by 0.5 percent. But in the saintly globalist European Union, they went up by 1.5 percent in the same period. In fact, per-capita carbon emissions in Trump's America are nearly at a 70-year low.

...I’m curious to see the real figures. I dig around and found that the 0.5% number seems to have come from BP. And when we read more of the context...

Declines were led by the US (-0.5%). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years.

...we see just how full of crap Steve was when he said this...

It turns out energy deregulation does more to fight climate change than going to conferences.

The numbers tell us that Trump's deregulation efforts have, in fact, done less to fight climate change. Not only did our progress on emissions slow down, but the Dept. of Energy projected that 2018 and 2019 will actually see an increase in emissions.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of what Steve has to say, because I'm sure he was similarly selective with his numbers throughout.

 

[Tornado]

It should be noted, claims of "lifelong Democrat" being a pantload or not, that pointedly not being a Republican during the Bush Administration has made and broken an awful lot of political careers in the decade since as new faces have entered politics. Voting in lockstep with Bush's wishes over the big thing, and seemingly for reasoning that wasn't dissimilar, certainly hasn't helped Clinton's higher political ambitions since then. The most amusing thing about Trump's donation list is that it's such a who's who of high profile political scandals. Spitzer, Blagojevich, Weiner, Clinton herself.



That his base doesn't seem to care that his views about gun control, healthcare, abortion, taxation and what have you seem to come about when he decided to run for president on the "🤬 Obama" political platform is to an extent a separate matte; but the GOP (and Jeb! in particular) sure spent a lot of the election digging up modern GOP golden rules that he wasn't terribly concerned about even when he was a registered Republican.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The numbers tell us that Trump's deregulation efforts have, in fact, done less to fight climate change. Not only did our progress on emissions slow down, but the Dept. of Energy projected that 2018 and 2019 will actually see an increase in emissions.

I see the projected increase in emissions but I don't see anything that links deregulation to the increase. I also note that, for all the talk of coal, coal emissions are actually projected to be down 10% compared to Obama's final year in office. Total emissions in 2019 are projected to be the same as in 2015 even though the economy could well be 10% larger than it was in 2015. That's quite a dramatic increase in efficiency.

 

[Joey D]

Edit: I'll leave this here. I'm curious to see the responses.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ste...st-admit-that-this-is-a-successful-presidency

While Trump might've done some good, I do not believe his presidency is successful nor do I think it will be successful going forward. He has numerous violations of the Constitution, I think his actions have ruined the economy long-term, he's potentially damaged foreign relations with Europe and Asia, he continues to support countries like Saudi Arabia for whatever reason, he's going to shut the government down over a wall, and I think there's probably something in the Russian investigation that's illegal just to name a few things. I also think his populist ideas and unfiltered rhetoric have help fuel hate in the US.

Oh, and let's not forget he's bordering on a First Amendment violation and is in violation of the Second Amendment with his bump stock ban. I'm all for banning bump stocks, but only the continued sale of them. People who currently own them should not be required, by law, to destroy them. Even the assault weapons ban offered up a grandfather clause in it.

 

[huskeR32]

I see the projected increase in emissions but I don't see anything that links deregulation to the increase.

I didn't say they were linked, the author did. I simply took the sentence where he linked deregulation to the 2017 numbers ("It turns out energy deregulation does more to fight climate change...") and turned it around to reflect that 2017 actually represented less progress than the previous years.

Pointing out that his stance is a crock of crap doesn't mean I automatically hold the opposite view.

As with almost anything, the overly-generalized conclusion misses the mark. The same forecast report mentions that increases will continue for the foreseeable future due to many factors, not the least of which is that greater consumption of fossil fuels due to simple population growth will start to outpace the efficiency gains being made. This would be true no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

All that being said, though, as myopic as it would be to lay it all on Trump's feet, it's equally so to say he deserves none of the blame. The deregulatory efforts of his EPA certainly play a part in both 2017's slowdown, and the magnitude of the projected increases in emissions. How large a part is probably impossible to say.

I also note that, for all the talk of coal, coal emissions are actually projected to be down 10% compared to Obama's final year in office.

Sure, because coal isn't making the comeback that Trump promised it would, and the ascendancy of natural gas continues apace. That's not surprising in the least.

Total emissions in 2019 are projected to be the same as in 2015 even though the economy could well be 10% larger than it was in 2015. That's quite a dramatic increase in efficiency.

Agreed, keeping emissions on a curve that improves relative to economic or population growth isn't anything to scoff at. But watching sizable decreases turn into increases in just a few years, it's hard not to wish we had kept that same policies and ways of thinking in place, and to wonder if we'd be even better off yet.

 

[Novalee]

https://cnn.it/2EuTfCb

(CNN) - The Donald J. Trump Foundation has agreed to dissolve under judicial supervision amid an ongoing lawsuit concerning its finances, according to a document filed Tuesday in Manhattan Supreme Court by the New York state Attorney General's office.


I am betting Mr president is not to happy over this .



This just in now

http://huffp.st/spai5ap

WASHINGTON ― A judge tore into Michael Flynn Tuesday ahead of imposing a sentence on President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser and prominent campaign supporter for lying to the FBI.

 

[Johnnypenso]

All that being said, though, as myopic as it would be to lay it all on Trump's feet, it's equally so to say he deserves none of the blame. The deregulatory efforts of his EPA certainly play a part in both 2017's slowdown, and the magnitude of the projected increases in emissions. How large a part is probably impossible to say.

I don't think one can say whether the deregulatory efforts of the EPA play any part in any of the changes in CO2 emissions without some in depth analysis. From the link, Trump's economy is growing faster than the Obama economy which will increase emissions. In particular, the Total Production Index was off 3% in Obama's last three years but has exploded in the Trump economy, increasing (projected) 9 % in just three years. That's a 12% differential in a sector that is heavy in emissions. Those two factors alone could account for almost all of the change in emissions.

 

[mustafur]

Late news but I'm seriously surprised how little coverage this got.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ure-case-victims-may-sue-in-u-s-idUSKBN1OA25H

The case is likely going to America, it may have links to the US side of Ford or something.

 

[Liquid]

Wasn't the Clinton Foundation the one which was supposed to close down?

 

[PocketZeven]

It's still a series snippets presented without context.

Context is uranium one, we both established that.

No, the establishment on both sides hate him, he was a life long Dem that turned Rep. When he switched the Dems dropped him like a hot potato and start to find anything they can to discredit him(where were they all those years when he was donating?). The Reps are just as fake accepting him with semi open arms.
He does what he has to do to get by, just like the rest of them/us.

Edit: I'll leave this here. I'm curious to see the responses.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ste...st-admit-that-this-is-a-successful-presidency

Except Steve Hilton is not really a credible source for such an opinion. Trump works for the american people and not for a british former politician. While polling is also speculative, it does give a better indication.

While Trump might've done some good, I do not believe his presidency is successful nor do I think it will be successful going forward. He has numerous violations of the Constitution, I think his actions have ruined the economy long-term, he's potentially damaged foreign relations with Europe and Asia, he continues to support countries like Saudi Arabia for whatever reason, he's going to shut the government down over a wall, and I think there's probably something in the Russian investigation that's illegal just to name a few things. I also think his populist ideas and unfiltered rhetoric have help fuel hate in the US.

Oh, and let's not forget he's bordering on a First Amendment violation and is in violation of the Second Amendment with his bump stock ban. I'm all for banning bump stocks, but only the continued sale of them. People who currently own them should not be required, by law, to destroy them. Even the assault weapons ban offered up a grandfather clause in it.

How is banning bump stocks a violation?

 

[Joey D]

How is banning bump stocks a violation?

Owners are being forced to turn them in, which means the guns they're attached to could, in theory, be forcibly turned in as well. I'm ok with bump stocks getting outlawed, but I'm not OK with the government demanding current owners surrender them. There should be a grandfather clause that allows current owners to keep theirs with a stop sale going forward.

What I don't understand is the Republicans blasted Bill Clinton over the assault weapons ban but don't seem to care that Trump is doing something more intrusive to gun owners.

 

[PocketZeven]

Owners are being forced to turn them in, which means the guns they're attached to could, in theory, be forcibly turned in as well. I'm ok with bump stocks getting outlawed, but I'm not OK with the government demanding current owners surrender them. There should be a grandfather clause that allows current owners to keep theirs with a stop sale going forward.

What I don't understand is the Republicans blasted Bill Clinton over the assault weapons ban but don't seem to care that Trump is doing something more intrusive to gun owners.

I understant your opinion on the matter, But that doesnt answer how it violates the second amendment.

 

[Joey D]

I understant your opinion on the matter, But that doesnt answer how it violates the second amendment.

It's the government confiscating firearms, presumably with force if necessary.

It also rewrites a law without going through the proper process and opens the door for further laws to be enacted that require citizens to hand over their firearms.

 

[huskeR32]

I don't think one can say whether the deregulatory efforts of the EPA play any part in any of the changes in CO2 emissions without some in depth analysis. From the link, Trump's economy is growing faster than the Obama economy which will increase emissions. In particular, the Total Production Index was off 3% in Obama's last three years but has exploded in the Trump economy, increasing (projected) 9 % in just three years. That's a 12% differential in a sector that is heavy in emissions. Those two factors alone could account for almost all of the change in emissions.

Sure, they could. I'm a little curious, though, why that doesn't require the same "in depth analysis" before declaring it so confidently.

---

It's the government confiscating firearms, presumably with force if necessary.

How are you getting from confiscating bump stocks to confiscating the entire firearm?

 

[Joey D]

How are you getting from confiscating bump stocks to confiscating the entire firearm?

Since the government now classifies bump stock equipt guns as "machine guns", it can confiscate the entire weapon if it sees fit to do so and prosecute the owners with felony charges.

 

[Danoff]

It's weird to regulate bump stocks more heavily than automatic weapons. Automatic weapons aren't banned, they're just really hard to get. Kinda like rocket launchers and tanks. Bump stocks should get a similar treatment.

Edit:

Nevermind, it's just poor press calling it a "ban". Bump stocks are just being classified in with automatic weapons... which I think is probably spot on based on the purpose of that classification. So it's not weird. It's what I'd expect.

 

[Famine]

I understant your opinion on the matter, But that doesnt answer how it violates the second amendment.

Making something illegal and then confiscating it violates the Fourth Amendment.

 

[PocketZeven]

Making something illegal and then confiscating it violates the Fourth Amendment.

It does? how so?

@Joey D stated that it violated the 2nd amendment. Bump Stocks arent weapons on their own.

 

[Joey D]

It does? how so?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The government can't take something without probable cause or a warrant. Nevermind that they should be taking anything anyways.

@Joey D stated that it violated the 2nd amendment. Bump Stocks arent weapons on their own.

They are part of a firearm though, or rather can be. Bump stock equipped weapons can also be classified as a machine gun or assault rifle, which can be seized by the government and the owner prosecuted.

It violates the Second Amendment because it's forcing some owners to surrender their guns by force. That's a bigger issue than merely banning the further sale of them, which is what the law should be if anything.

 

[TexRex]

Given that they can't be traced, I'm curious how the ATF is going to take action against those who fail to surrender or destroy them.

 

[PocketZeven]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The government can't take something without probable cause or a warrant. Nevermind that they should be taking anything anyways.



They are part of a firearm though, or rather can be. Bump stock equipped weapons can also be classified as a machine gun or assault rifle, which can be seized by the government and the owner prosecuted.

It violates the Second Amendment because it's forcing some owners to surrender their guns by force. That's a bigger issue than merely banning the further sale of them, which is what the law should be if anything.

Probable cause: illegal bump stocks. The amendment states "unreasonable" and possessing something that is illegal by law is probable cause if they have proof you own one.

I understand your opinion. However your misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. The right to bear and keep arms does not specify if it covers for certain "parts" of a firearm. A bumpstock itself isnt a weapon. It is however a part that modifies a weapon to circumvent the NFA and classification as a Title 2 weapon.

 

[Danoff]

Given that they can't be traced, I'm curious how the ATF is going to take action against those who fail to surrender or destroy them.

It'll be something that turns up during other offenses and gets tacked on. Someone gets their house raided for other reasons, for example, and an illegal bump stock is found and it's used as one more thing to throw at the perp.

 

[Novalee]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Im not seeing the word bumpstock anywhere there.

Here is what a militia is supposed to be

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musketor firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[132]

 

[Rallywagon]

When it comes to the 2nd. The important take away is the second part. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The latter tenant is a requirement for the former, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
The definition of Militia isnt required, since it holds no bearing on the intent of the 2nd, which is protect individuals rights to own guns so they can create well armed and regulated militias, to stand against enemies of the state, both foriegn and domestic.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sure, they could. I'm a little curious, though, why that doesn't require the same "in depth analysis" before declaring it so confidently.

Those two factors alone could account for almost all of the change in emissions

 

[Joey D]

Probable cause: illegal bump stocks. The amendment states "unreasonable" and possessing something that is illegal by law is probable cause if they have proof you own one.

I understand your opinion. However your misrepresenting the 2nd amendment. The right to bear and keep arms does not specify if it covers for certain "parts" of a firearm. A bumpstock itself isnt a weapon. It is however a part that modifies a weapon to circumvent the NFA and classification as a Title 2 weapon.

Having something that was legal yesterday and then illegal today isn't probable cause. It's unreasonable to think someone who was law-abiding at 11:59 pm is somehow no longer law abiding at 12:01 am on X day.

As for the 2nd Amendment, by taking part of a gun that was legal and then making it illegal and forcing people to turn them in is infringing on the owner's rights. They owned a perfectly legal device and now the government wants to take it, with force if need be and if the owner doesn't turn it in, they can get prosecuted. That's infringing on rights at a pretty basic level. Grandfathering in current owners and outlawing the sale of the device going forward is another discussion, but one that I don't think infringes on anyone's rights (although you could argue it).

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Im not seeing the word bumpstock anywhere there.

Here is what a militia is supposed to be

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musketor firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[132]

If you want to go by the definition of a militia, then the 2nd Amendment is being violated. Bayonets are illegal so you couldn't provide yourself with a good one even if you wanted to.

 

[Danoff]

Having something that was legal yesterday and then illegal today isn't probable cause. It's unreasonable to think someone who was law-abiding at 11:59 pm is somehow no longer law abiding at 12:01 am on X day.

They're being given 90 days to acquire the appropriate license or divest themselves of the bump stocks.