US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[vienna]

Just catching up; been off for a couple of days; spirit willing, body weak and all that...

Originally Posted by Dowly

Actually, I saw a documentary called Down Periscope! once in which they tested this, and the diesel boat was able to sneak past a modern sub (and I think a bunch of surface vessels) unnoticed.

Fact is stranger than fiction:

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...red-faced.html

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Really, you think rioting is ok?

Seems like its been an American tradition since the beginning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._North_America

I'm sure the Crown thought the demonstrators and rioters in those times were disloyal rabble and don't get them started on the biased media, you know, like that Thomas Paine fellow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Odd how a lot of those radical, liberal rabble rousers went on to form the government we hold so dearly and, in the many, many years since are seen as national heroes and touchstones of US democracy. When is a revolution ever legal? When you win...

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

No, because conservatives have enough class that they don't react to adversity with riots and meltdowns,

Ahem...

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Oh for Heaven sake. Are people OK with Clinton getting a BJ in the oval office. Are they ok with the long list of women who were sexually molested by Clinton. Will I guess so as he stayed in the limelight long after his presidency. The holier than though cramp is getting old.

Stop chiming in on Trump. The White House already had a sexual deviant. Nothing new. Widely accepted. Again...nothing new.

My god, I must have been away a long time! When did the Clintons get back into the Oval Office? I thought that Trump fellow was in charge, is he not? Shouldn't we be more concerned with what he is doing and leave the actions of people not sitting in the Big Chair, which we cannot go back and change, out of the argument of what we now face. It doesn't matter what they did or didn't say or do; that is the past and, unless there are repercussions that are best left to the workings of the law, they have extremely little to no bearing on what the present occupant of the White House is doing and the conduct of his administration. It seems the only time the questionable or illegal actions of those in the past is brought up is mainly as an attempt to justify the questionable or illegal actions of the current administration. Given the main selling point for Trump's election was he was going to reform the government, you know, drain the swamp, there should be a better defense of his administration than 'Well, the other guys did it too!'; is the best to be said of the current situation(s) is just to justify the continuation of malfeasance?...

Originally Posted by MaDef

So far I'm with Trump on this. Tell me what does the U.S. get in return for taking 1250 "refugees" off the hands of the Australians.?

Not much, unless this counts:

Congressional Research Service -- Australia: Background and U.S. Relations 12/14/2015

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33010.pdf

Trump's handling of the Acting-AG situation shows how politically dense he really is; instead of firing her in a knee-jerk reaction, he should have just let her be and waited the day or so for his own choice to be confirmed; the confirmation would have pretty much easily gone through, there would have been far less of an uproar and he wouldn't have handed his opponent yet another club with which to beat him; of course, such actions would have required maturity, considered thought and a grasp of political strategy, so I guess the outcome was to have been expected...

As time goes on, I can't help but marvel at the similarities between Trump's approach to handling the duties, obligations and limitations of the Presidency and the approach of another whom he may soon join in the history books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre



<O>

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Oh, and repealing the regulation to prevent people with severe mental illnesses from buying firearms...no way that can backfire, eh?

https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/...ty-disability/

I'll field this one, it was a "bad law", for a couple of reasons.

1. It was a knee jerk law in response to the Sandy Hook School shooting. (The shooter did not legally own a gun, He broke into his mother's gun safe and took her guns).

2. In this country gun ownership is a right, and can only be rescinded through due process that usually means the person has been convicted of a crime or is on parole or as a condition of probation (this one is usually temporary).

3. In this country you cannot take someones rights away for something they might do, you can only do that for something they have done.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MaDef

I'll field this one, it was a "bad law", for a couple of reasons.

1. It was a knee jerk law in response to the Sandy Hook School shooting. (The shooter did not legally own a gun, He broke into his mother's gun safe and took her guns).

2. In this country gun ownership is a right, and can only be rescinded through due process that usually means the person has been convicted of a crime or is on parole or as a condition of probation (this one is usually temporary).

3. In this country you cannot take someones rights away for something they might do, you can only do that for something they have done.

I figured as much, just seems a bit of a shame for those who may well die that you can only take away the firearms after the rampage, by which time they're probably dead anyway. I mean, are people under the same conditions legal to drive a car or fly an aircraft?

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

EDIT: Oh, and how about that Bowling Green massacre then? Gun violence must be so bad over there that they didn't even bother reporting it!

I call BS on that story, only place that happened was in someones imagination.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by vienna

As time goes on, I can't help but marvel at the similarities between Trump's approach to handling the duties, obligations and limitations of the Presidency and the approach of another whom he may soon join in the history books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre



<O>

Funny you should say that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Massacre

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by MaDef

[...]
3. In this country you cannot take someones rights away for something they might do, you can only do that for something they have done.

What about millions of muslims who never thought or think of terrorism. or Mexicans, for that matter

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MaDef

I call BS on that story, only place that happened was in someones imagination.

Everyone is calling BS on that story...except Kellyanne Conway, of course:

[Onkel Neal]

Foriegners don't have the same rights as American citizens.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I figured as much, just seems a bit of a shame for those who may well die that you can only take away the firearms after the rampage, by which time they're probably dead anyway. I mean, are people under the same conditions legal to drive a car or fly an aircraft?

while owning/operating a car/truck isn't a right covered under the constitution,
you don't need a license to own or operate the vehicle as long as it's on private property. (personal experience growing up)

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Catfish

What about millions of muslims who never thought or think of terrorism. or Mexicans, for that matter

as far as I know, they have all the same rights if (big if here) they are naturalized citizens

If they hold a green card (meaning they are legal alien residents) they have most of the rights a citizen has. Although they cannot vote, they cannot remain outside the U.S. for an unlimited amount of time, they need to advise immigration services of change of addresses when they move, they cannot commit crimes, espionage, or terrorism, if they don't follow those rules they can lose the right to live here.

In my opinion, If they are here illegally they should be afforded the rights under the 5th amendment and given an expedited trip back to their country of Origin.

I don't have a problem with this, I have a problem with my government not following the rules that they themselves wrote. (also known as enforcement)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MaDef

while owning/operating a car/truck isn't a right covered under the constitution,
you don't need a license to own or operate the vehicle as long as it's on private property. (personal experience growing up)

Yeah, I think the same laws apply here which is useful out in the countryside.
Eh, I understand the whole right based under the constitution, and that's something that's not likely to change, well...not soon anyway.
I wonder if there will ever be an answer to it, still...that's a topic for another thread I guess, which we've already covered extensively.
Still...on the up side, American hospitals have done huge things for the development of treatment of bullet wounds, so that's a positive I guess.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Still...on the up side, American hospitals have done huge things for the development of treatment of bullet wounds, so that's a positive I guess.

Much like those in Belfast during the troubles.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Yeah, I think the same laws apply here which is useful out in the countryside.
Eh, I understand the whole right based under the constitution, and that's something that's not likely to change, well...not soon anyway.
I wonder if there will ever be an answer to it, still...that's a topic for another thread I guess, which we've already covered extensively.
Still...on the up side, American hospitals have done huge things for the development of treatment of bullet wounds, so that's a positive I guess.

One thing to keep in mind, is the impact is a bit overblown, of the 2.5 million deaths we have a year, about 1.2% are firearm related, and of those most are accidents or suicides. It's not the wild wild west anymore, no matter what the movies would have you believe.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MaDef

One thing to keep in mind, is the impact is a bit overblown, of the 2.5 million deaths we have a year, about 1.2% are firearm related, and of those most are accidents or suicides. It's not the wild wild west anymore, no matter what the movies would have you believe.

Are you saying Will Smith lied to me?

Next you'll be telling me that Kenneth Branagh never had a giant steam-powered metal spider!

The mass shootings are a problem though, and considering the impact size compared with terrorism, it does seem a bit off to do so much against terrorists, but so little against mass shootings. I mean, I know it's an easier target, but when you compare the amount of Americans killed by either cause...

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Are you saying Will Smith lied to me?

Next you'll be telling me that Kenneth Branagh never had a giant steam-powered metal spider!

The mass shootings are a problem though, and considering the impact size compared with terrorism, it does seem a bit off to do so much against terrorists, but so little against mass shootings. I mean, I know it's an easier target, but when you compare the amount of Americans killed by either cause...

most are committed by mentally ill people who shouldn't be unsupervised, but it's not been politically correct to use sanitariums or asylums since the 60's and having someone declared incompetent so they can be committed involuntarily is very difficult.