America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

But of course, Trump and daughter-Trump are above the law.

Also, how long until Trump uses Goya as a political pawn to show that he loves Mexicans? Dios mio!

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

"The coronavirus will go away in a month."

*fast forward to August 15*

"We have reported zero cases today. I told you it was going to go away."

edit: wrong thread again...that was in response to Trump moving the virus data collection away from the CDC

 

[Biggles]

Are you sure?

Yup. Trump is done. It's been a slow-motion train wreck, but in the end Trump will lose all or most of the swing states. It's possible he may also hand the Senate to the Democrats. The GOP will have to rebuild from scratch. People will look back on these 4 years & wonder WTF - how could the US vote such an incompetent, narcissistic idiot to the highest office in the land?

However, Trump will continue to be "very successful" - I anticipate he will create a media group that will undermine Fox News.

 

[huskeR32]

Yup. Trump is done. It's been a slow-motion train wreck, but in the end Trump will lose all or most of the swing states. It's possible he may also hand the Senate to the Democrats. The GOP will have to rebuild from scratch. People will look back on these 4 years & wonder WTF - how could the US vote such an incompetent, narcissistic idiot to the highest office in the land?

However, Trump will continue to be "very successful" - I anticipate he will create a media group that will undermine Fox News.

Here’s hopin’...

 

[GranTurNismo]

Bottom line is, not all of the original Trump voters are Trump supporters now though... though a big chunk of them are still Fox News watching Trump fanatics who will call anything even remotely critical of him Fake News, some can actually see how his leadership during the pandemic and events in the wake of George Floyd's murder was beyond abysmal and how he was absolutely zero plan when it comes to solving unemployment, healthcare, infrastructure, and other social services, and that will make all the difference.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Yup. Trump is done. It's been a slow-motion train wreck, but in the end Trump will lose all or most of the swing states. It's possible he may also hand the Senate to the Democrats. The GOP will have to rebuild from scratch. People will look back on these 4 years & wonder WTF - how could the US vote such an incompetent, narcissistic idiot to the highest office in the land?

However, Trump will continue to be "very successful" - I anticipate he will create a media group that will undermine Fox News.

You may be right. I hope you're not.

but:
Do you really want to destroy the carbon fuel industry?
Do you want your taxes raised?
Do you want open borders? And taxpayer funding for illegal's social programs and healthcare?
Do you want to defund the police, and replace police departments with community groups?

It would be funny if it were just a joke, but it is not, it is real. Democrats want this.

The Democrat party, the party that wants to take away guns, also wants to take away your police department, They want to defund the cops.

The leftist lunatics have taken over the Democratic party. Brain dead Biden is following their lead.

 

[Scaff]

Do you really want to destroy the carbon fuel industry?

It's a dying industry, a plan to replace it with one that can bring jobs to Americans is not a bad thing at all, quite the opposite. Its also at least a plan, unlike the one for coal, which turned out rather badly for the coal industry that supported Trump.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...bs-since-trump-became-president/#7f4979dc2e29

Do you want your taxes raised?

I'm not American, but if the money is put to good use I have no objection to it as a concept, that's not forgetting that a single payer health care system would cost taxpayer less. And by 'your' you mean the very wealthiest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/business/2020-democrats-tax.html

Do you want open borders? And taxpayer funding for illegal's social programs and healthcare?

Not this nonsense again, the Democrat party is not calling for open borders in the way you are inferring at all.

• Take urgent action to undo Trump’s damage and reclaim America’s values
• Modernize America’s immigration system
• Welcome immigrants in our communities
• Reassert America’s commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees
• Tackle the root causes of irregular migration
• Implement effective border screening

https://joebiden.com/immigration/

Do you want to defund the police, and replace police departments with community groups?

Again, not what is being called for at all, however, the US police needs an overhaul and to be demilitarised, and if the reduction in costs from that can be used to address crime reduction in other ways (ways that do work) then I fail to see why anyone would object to that?

"The bill forces federal police to use body and dashboard cameras, ban chokeholds, eliminate unannounced police raids known as "no-knock warrants", make it easier to hold police liable for civil rights violations and calls for federal funds to be withheld from local police forces who do not make similar reforms."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52969375

It would be funny if it were just a joke, but it is not, it is real. Democrats want this.

The Democrat party, the party that wants to take away guns, also wants to take away your police department, They want to defund the cops.

The leftist lunatics have taken over the Democratic party. Brain dead Biden is following their lead.

No, it's not real, its Fox News and OANN ******** being regurgitated as if it were fact.

It's FEMA deathcamps and birther level nonsense (remind me again - how much of this did Trump unearth as truth?)

Oh, and gun control is not 'take away guns', never was.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Oh, and gun control is not 'take away guns', never was.

Tell that to the St. Louis couple who had their rifle confiscated, even after thugs trespassed on their property.

 

[Scaff]

Tell that to the St. Louis couple who had their rifle confiscated, even after thugs trespassed on their property.

The Democratic Party did that?

Are you sure?

Oh, and would that be the couple who pointed guns at a protest march that went past their house?

 

[Northstar]

Tell that to the St. Louis couple who had their rifle confiscated, even after thugs trespassed on their property.

Neither of those idiots should be allowed near a squirt gun let alone an actual one.

 

[dlshearon]

They want our guns. The whole common sense gun laws, they’re already there. Criminals obtain guns regardless.

“Don’t piss down my back and tell me its raining”

 

[Northstar]

They want our guns. The whole common sense gun laws, they’re already there. Criminals obtain guns regardless.

“Don’t piss down my back and tell me its raining”

So long as the private seller “loophole” exists common sense laws are not in place. I’d imagine that’s largely how criminals get guns as well.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Tell that to the St. Louis couple who had their rifle confiscated, even after thugs trespassed on their property.

Their lawyer says they handed the weapons over voluntarily, they weren't seized. Now, using a weapon to defend your property against people who have come onto it and who are demonstrating the potential for a forcible encounter... that's the American way, however little I agree with it. There was no need for them to hand the weapons over, so why did they? Their own attorney says they handed them over voluntarily. Some kind of licensing issue? Maybe some weird property covenant?

In any case they're doing quite well out of it, several offers of free AR-15s from publicly-minded local gun stores.

 

[TetsuKobura]

The Democratic Party did that?

Are you sure?

Oh, and would that be the couple who pointed guns at a protest march that went past their house?

I never said the Democratic Party did that. I pointed out that the argument of “never about taking away guns” was bs.

Yeah, after those guys tore down an iron gate near their property.

 

[Scaff]

I never said the Democratic Party did that. I pointed out that the argument of “never about taking away guns” was bs.

The context of the discussion was the Democratic Party taking away guns, as such your point was a meaningless strawman.

Yeah, after those guys tore down an iron gate near their property.

Nope, they opened a gate and walked through it.

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/new...rs-release-statement-in-support-of-protesters

 

[dlshearon]

So long as the private seller “loophole” exists common sense laws are not in place. I’d imagine that’s largely how criminals get guns as well.

Most people aren’t selling their guns to sketch balls off the street.
Look at Nashville, 400 + stolen guns last year. Already in the triple digits this year. The black market for guns gets crazy the more crime that has been committed with a single weapon.
Your average joe aint trading a gun for meth or selling a 1911 for 100 bucks cause it was used in a murder/homicide.

 

[Scaff]

Most people aren’t selling their guns to sketch balls off the street.
Look at Nashville, 400 + stolen guns last year. Already in the triple digits this year. The black market for guns gets crazy the more crime that has been committed with a single weapon.
Your average joe aint trading a gun for meth or selling a 1911 for 100 bucks cause it was used in a murder/homicide.

So if guns were required to be put in secure and locked gun safes (as they are in the UK) then it would be much harder for them to be stolen and the numbers stolen would reduce?

What's wrong with that example of gun control?

 

[Blitz24]

So if guns were required to be put in secure and locked gun safes (as they are in the UK) then it would be much harder for them to be stolen and the numbers stolen would reduce?

What's wrong with that example of gun control?

My guess is that it would make it harder for gun owners to protect themselves, or at least that's what they would argue. Many of those against weapons reform see "gun control = gun repossession/forfeiture". It CAN mean that, but for many gun owners, it will not prevent them from owning one.

 

[Scaff]

My guess is that it would make it harder for gun owners to protect themselves, or at least that's what they would argue.

Many of whom then fail to protect themselves and end up being the victim.

Many of those against weapons reform see "gun control = gun repossession/forfeiture". It CAN mean that, but for many gun owners, it will not prevent them from owning one.

No political party in the US would seriously go into an election and propose that, while the majority of Americans actually favour tighter gun control.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Tell that to the St. Louis couple who had their rifle confiscated, even after thugs trespassed on their property.

Finally show your true colors huh?

 

[Joey D]

The Democrat party, the party that wants to take away guns,

Trump already seized guns from law-abiding citizens with unlawful bump stock ban that required owners to turn in and/or destroy their legally obtained property. If you're going to criticize the Democrats for doing something, make sure your guy isn't doing the same thing.

 

[DesertPenguin]

You think the bump stock ban is unlawful?

 

[Joey D]

You think the bump stock ban is unlawful?

In the way it was written, yes, it's unlawful. It turned legal owners of bump stocks into criminals overnight, without any grandfather clause and it required owners to surrender their legally obtained property to the government. What the law should've done was make the sale of bump stocks illegal after X date and anything sold prior to X date would be grandfathered in, just like the assault rifle ban.

What bothers me the most about the law is the Trump supporters seem to be just fine with it when it's a clearcut example of the government stepping in and seizing legally obtained firearms. Republicans cried that Obama would take their guns, but throughout his eight years, that never happened. In fact, Trump even flat out said he was in favour of just taking guns:

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

I'm not for bump stocks and do think they should be made illegal. But, I don't think that people who obtained them legally should be made criminals because they don't want to surrender their property to the government.

 

[DesertPenguin]

If murder was legal, and people killed others all the time, but then we made it illegal therefore making all of this people criminals, would you feel the same way? It's an extreme example but I feel it still fits. It's wrong even if there isn't a law that says so, our human nature can decide that on its own

 

[Danoff]

If murder was legal, and people killed others all the time, but then we made it illegal therefore making all of this people criminals, would you feel the same way? It's an extreme example but I feel it still fits. It's wrong even if there isn't a law that says so, our human nature can decide that on its own

It's slightly different, because in one case you're talking about an action against others, and in another case it's owning property, which is not harming others simply by existing. Acquiring property legally only to have it seized is troubling.

If I wanted to make your case as strongly as I could I'd say that the ultimate example of this is slavery. Where people acquired property (slaves) legally, only to have that property seized (liberated) later.

 

[Joey D]

If murder was legal, and people killed others all the time, but then we made it illegal therefore making all of this people criminals, would you feel the same way? It's an extreme example but I feel it still fits. It's wrong even if there isn't a law that says so, our human nature can decide that on its own

Murder violates the rights of others, owning a bump stock does not so it's not an apples to oranges comparison in my mind. There's nothing inherently wrong with owning a bump stock either.

 

[DesertPenguin]

For me it's the context of wanting to own a bump stock. If you really wanted a full-auto rifle you would have one. It's not illegal in most states, it just requires a crap ton of paperwork and patience. You wanna have your pew pew fun shooting at bottles and things? Go for it, just do it the proper way. Bump Stocks are associated with public shootings. Why would you want to be associated with that?

 

[Joey D]

For me it's the context of wanting to own a bump stock. If you really wanted a full-auto rifle you would have one. It's not illegal in most states, it just requires a crap ton of paperwork and patience. You wanna have your pew pew fun shooting at bottles and things? Go for it, just do it the proper way. Bump Stocks are associated with public shootings. Why would you want to be associated with that?

As I said, I think they should be illegal, but I don't think people who acquired them legally should be made criminals all of a sudden. What someone uses a bump stock for is not my concern as long as they aren't violating the rights of others in the process.

 

[DesertPenguin]

I guess. If it was me with a gun, instead of putting energy into being upset about it I would put my energy into getting a proper full-auto firearm.

 

[novcze]

The absence of irony suggests that it's not likely to have been sarcasm. It was, however, a conclusion founded upon incomplete information.

Of course, neither being rich nor being driven by ideology explicitly indicates an individual as being a communist. They could be, but one can't reasonably infer that from the information available.

And? It's obvious that we can't know everything about a person. So we use 'not sarcasm' to convey our opinions while being aware that it might not be accurate.

I'm aware. Armed with that knowledge, perhaps now you understand how the words I was using did not themselves suggest open border advocacy. I'm in favor of border security, of which hunting down those who have committed no criminal act unrelated to how they came to be in the country most definitely is not an example.

Yeah, and my opposition to laws for which there is no reasonable justification, which I highlighted explicitly so that they wouldn't be confused with laws for which there is reasonable justification, would suggest that I'm not one.

You are not supposed to choose which laws to follow and if you do and brake the law you must expect punishment. Your 'reasonable justification' doesn't matter. Majority of people in your country (and in my country too) agree that we don't want undocumented aliens roaming our streets, so legislation is made and people should follow. And I already stated how I see employment of illegals in the US, it's disgrace.

It's funny that you don't see a tiny bit of anarchism in your opinions.

Sure, but those who advocate for changing these laws are then baselessly accused of being in favor of open borders and/or of being anarchists by individuals who lack a logical argument against.

Not by me, I always encourage lawful change of legislation for improvement of life for citizens.

I find it humorous that you've tacked a "by the way" onto your response to the actual topic of discussion,

I found funny story that Russians want to buy your "offensive" statues while "maybe communists" in the US are buying our offensive statues and shared the story in this thread, that's all.
Ok, you misunderstood my tongue-in-cheek style, so your assumptions about my supposed conclusions are funny. Next time I use more smileys, one is not enough .