World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[dsheinem]

Fuck Trump, and fuck you if you support him.

[marurun]

Fuck Trump, and fuck you if you support him.

I really don't know what to do with you, man. I agree with you, and your feelings are appropriate, but that post wasn't. Maybe it makes you feel better, but does it contribute in any way to the forum that might make up for the forum rules violation?

[dsheinem]

Fuck Trump, and fuck you if you support him.

I really don't know what to do with you, man. I agree with you, and your feelings are appropriate, but that post wasn't. Maybe it makes you feel better, but does it contribute in any way to the forum that might make up for the forum rules violation?

Let's be honest: the "Always display a positive, friendly attitude" rule is kinda bullshit that has historically been willfully ignored and selectively enforced by members and mods alike in topics in this thread and elsewhere that have engendered impassioned posts --- and for good reason. Disagreement isn't always friendly nor can it be, and sometimes being impassioned about something can be valuable in provoking further discussion. As you said: my sentiment was appropriate. If I can't express appropriate sentiment that might be inflammatory in general terms but not directed at any member specifically, and if that post generates more discussion...well I don't know what the cut-off is for "positive". In any case, certainly not every post here or elsewhere is "friendly". "Foul" language (a subjective definition) isn't in and of itself a violation of the rules.

If that means I get a warning or some such that is fine with me, but I feel like this is a place where, over time, I've established enough thoughtfulness in general and investment in meaningful discourse specifically to occasionally be allowed to vent a bit, too. If I've misread that, so be it.

[ZeroAX]

I would make a joke about us blocking U.S.A. Citizens from visiting Europe because some of them might be trump apologists. But then I realized how stupid, even as a joke, it would be to put all the decent, kind Americans in the same bag as all the losers who support Trump.

[Sarge]

So much to respond to, so I'm just not going to. Not even worth it.

[CRTGAMER]

So much to respond to, so I'm just not going to. Not even worth it.

Oh come on barking dogs don't bite. Join the party; oop maybe not the right word!

To me it's more important to have a judicial system that follows through with it's sentences. I am tired of people who commit crimes and nothing happening because of lack of space and resources. If you can not follow through with sentences they can not help those in need or those who have crimes committed against them and most importantly encourage people to follow the law.

As to the pro-life or choice issue. I wish, again just wishing, that the government would instead of fighting the fight they are, they focus on weather or not gov monies are spent on abortions. I think that is problem more than pro-live vs pro-choice. If the government funds, or does not fund, should be the first issue the government focuses on. Once that is decided they then can work with knowledgeable people to find out what limits can be created within the law related to that.

These are just my opinions and my takes after reading and being these debates. I am a teacher, my wife was teacher in the DC area, and we have four kids and go to our catholic church every Sunday. I have seen all sides of these arguments both the positive and negative and realize you can not get to black and white without traversing the through the gray.

Crime and Punishment
I am with you, our judicial system has no standard for a given punishment and at times appear way too lenient. Part of the reason for the punishment including the death penalty is a deterrent to other criminals. It is why the three strikes law to me makes sense. A criminal who already twice served jail time knows the third time will be a tough sentence then just maybe might go clean. For the studies that show three strikes does not work, at least that criminal is put away longer. No, it is not always a life sentence, just a mandated increased punishment. Yes, harsh punishment is also satisfaction justice to the victims, they deserve that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law

Three-strikes law
In the United States, habitual offender laws (commonly referred to as three-strikes laws) were first implemented by states then by the federal government in 1995. They mandate courts impose harsher sentences on those convicted of an offense if they have been previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses. The laws were designed to keep people who had shown a predliction to committing crimes in prison and away from potential victims.

Twenty-eight states have some form of "three-strikes" law. A person accused under such laws is referred to in a few states (notably Connecticut and Kansas) as a "persistent offender", while Missouri uses the unique term "prior and persistent offender". In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses; however, misdemeanor offenses can qualify for application of the three-strikes law in California, whose application has been the subject of controversy.

Abortion Funding Cut - 24 Week Abortion not against the law
All the fire from the protesters are because of the potential cut in funding to abortion clinics and NOT making it illegal as some misinterpret. The rhetoric of cutting off all services for the clinic's existence is moot when the real issue is the abortion stance. As mentioned not all Planned Parenthood offer Prenatal services and focus just on the abortion side of choice! I read and hear so many arguments on the women's Pro Choice with the women's rights and see so few articles on the unborn baby not having a choice. It is why I posted that extensive Abortion Stance article in my earlier Reply; the unborn baby all Pro Choicers and Pro Lifers should really consider is at what stage of incubation does consciousness begin. THAT should be the cutoff of allowing the abortion knife.

[MrPopo]

Fuck Trump, and fuck you if you support him.

I really don't know what to do with you, man. I agree with you, and your feelings are appropriate, but that post wasn't. Maybe it makes you feel better, but does it contribute in any way to the forum that might make up for the forum rules violation?

Let's be honest: the "Always display a positive, friendly attitude" rule is kinda bullshit that has historically been willfully ignored and selectively enforced by members and mods alike in topics in this thread and elsewhere that have engendered impassioned posts --- and for good reason. Disagreement isn't always friendly nor can it be, and sometimes being impassioned about something can be valuable in provoking further discussion. As you said: my sentiment was appropriate. If I can't express appropriate sentiment that might be inflammatory in general terms but not directed at any member specifically, and if that post generates more discussion...well I don't know what the cut-off is for "positive". In any case, certainly not every post here or elsewhere is "friendly". "Foul" language (a subjective definition) isn't in and of itself a violation of the rules.

If that means I get a warning or some such that is fine with me, but I feel like this is a place where, over time, I've established enough thoughtfulness in general and investment in meaningful discourse specifically to occasionally be allowed to vent a bit, too. If I've misread that, so be it.

But there was no actual content in your post other than "I'm pissed at Trump". By contrast jp1 has been making some posts on the hostile end but has backed up his strong feelings with well reasoned arguments. I don't see any way your post would generate discussion.

[jp1]

I'm torn on self defense issues, because it is a gray area for me, the preservation of life is an instinct as much as a choice and one probably shouldn't be held accountable for something they can not help. Further, if my children or my wife were faced with grave danger, I am certain that my Christian beliefs on the matter would take a back seat. Sadly, for me, that means eternal damnation, yet I still couldn't watch as my family was attacked. I realize there is some hypocrisy in that as well, but I am a flawed man. With that said, I definitely empathize with the families of victims, and their plight is not lost on me at all. It's a tough choice to make, and one I hope to never be faced with. Ideals are simple in a vacuum. The intricacies of emotion are the difficult part, I'd like to think I'd have the strength to follow my convictions...in the moment, I can't say for sure.

Interestingly, Judaism is actually quite clear on the notion of self defense or the defense of others; you are obligated to do so, even if it requires you to take the life of the attacker. If you're interested you can read more about it here, but a quick summary are the three things you cannot do to save your own life are to murder someone (which is distinct from killing; basically that you take an innocent life), engage in idolatry, or engage in sexual misconduct as defined in the Torah (adultery, incest, beastiality). In all other cases you not only can break one of the 613 commandments, you MUST.

This is all news to me. I did read through the wiki page and while some of those interpretations are somewhat loose, I can see how the idea is formed. It is quite strange that a Jew only need lay down their life for another Jew. How prevalent is that exclusion of people of other beliefs in your experience?

Honestly, I try to keep an open mind. While those particular beliefs don't coincide with my own, they feel morally sound when put in that context. As I said, it is an issue I struggle with already. Turning the other cheek just doesn't feel right in this kind of scenario, maybe it is just human nature to feel the need to intervene.

[CRTGAMER]

A President who follows his Campaign promises in a very quick manner
The President has done so much in just one week in office. So many Executive Actions, the same tool that President Obama was chatsized on. The XO Action does get immediate results, but has an issue of permanence. Some of the orders are only needed as a one time order to make things happen rapidly as in the pipeline or the wall.

"Pleased to present for your consideration":

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/10- ... igned-far/

The 14 executive actions Trump has signed (so far)
On working week one of the Trump administration, it seems worthwhile to set aside the highwire battles over words and inauguration crowd size and look at the concrete actions President Trump has taken to launch his presidency. President Trump has taken 14 executive actions since entering office. They largely fall in line with the “Contract with the American Voter” blueprint his campaign released last October, which laid out Trump’s vision for his first 100 days in office.



Here’s the list of Trump’s executive actions so far, starting with the most recent.

14. Refugees and terror The president, in this order, has blocked entry by any Syrian refugee indefinitely and has frozen entry for most other refugees (the Refugee Admissions Program) for 120 days. Additionally, Mr. Trump put a 90-day freeze on entry by people whose countries are currently considered high terrorism risks. The order says that on a case-by-case basis, officials can allow in some refugees, including those who are religious minorities in their countries.

13. Reshaping the military This memorandum initiates a larger process of military review and planning. It does not detail specific changes to the military yet, instead directing the Secretary of Defense to review readiness and come up with plans to fix shortfalls by 2019. The memo also directs the Defense Secretary to produce a more long-term defense strategy as well as reviews of the nation’s nuclear and ballistic missile defense postures.

12. Border wall In this order, President Trump states it is the policy of the United States to immediately construct a wall on the southern border. The order directs agencies to begin planning and identify funding for the project, including sending requests to Congress. It also directs agencies to construct or contract out for more detention facilities at or near the Mexican border.

This order also directs the hiring of an additional 5,000 border patrol agents, subject to funding. And it requires that all agencies identify any U.S. aid funds that have gone to Mexico in the past five years.

11. Deportations and sanctuary cities This is also a longer order with several major pieces. The president has directed agencies to step up deportation of those in the country illegally. First, he prioritizes seven groups of people for deportation. It is anyone: convicted of a crime, charged with a crime, who has committed a chargeable offense, has misrepresented themselves to the government, has abused a welfare program, who is under deportation order and who may “in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.”

Second, the order also directs the hiring of 10,000 more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, though it states that is subject to funding. Third, it states the U.S. policy is now to allow local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officers whenever possible. Fourth, it orders the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to block federal grants from so-called “sanctuary” cities which do not enforce some immigration laws.

10. Review manufacturing regulations In this memorandum, the president ordered the Commerce Secretary to begin a 60-day review of regulations for American manufacturers, with the aim of finding ways to speed up permitting and all federal processes for them.

9. American steel in pipelines President Trump directed the Commerce Secretary to come up with a plan to ensure that all pipelines built or repaired in the United States be constructed with American-made materials “to the maximum extent possible.”

8. Speeding up environmental reviews for all priority infrastructure President Trump ordered that agencies and the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality work together to set up faster deadlines and environmental approval for “high priority” infrastructure projects. It gives significant power and responsibility to the White House Council on Environmental Quality chairman, who will decide within 30 days if a proposed project is “high priority.” (The president has not yet nominated a new CEQ chairman.)

6 + 7. Speeding approval of Dakota Access and Keystone Oil Pipelines President Trump ordered that permits for the the Dakota Access Pipeline be approved in an expedited manner, “including easements or rights-of-way to cross Federal areas.” (Army denial of an easement was a previous victory for pipeline opponents.) In his Keystone memorandum, Mr. Trump invited TransCanada to resubmit its application for a pipeline permit, and he directed the State Department to issue a final decision on that application within 60 days.

5. Federal hiring freeze The president has told agencies they cannot fill any vacant positions nor open new ones, with two exceptions: military personnel and critical public safety positions.

4. TPP Withdraws the United States from all Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and from signing the trade deal.

3. Abortion President Trump has ordered that federal dollars cannot go to organizations that provide abortion services.

2. Regulation freeze The president has frozen all regulations now in process (but not approved) until they are approved by him or an agency after he took office. This means any regulation signed by former President Barack Obama in his final weeks in office — including some that deal with energy efficiency standards — are on hold until they’re reviewed by Trump’s administration.

1. ACA rollback. Mr. Trump has allowed all agency heads to waive requirements of the Affordable Care Act to the “maximum extent permitted by law.”

I do like the Tweeter for the President's direct words to the people and now a WEEKLY Video Streamed Address Speech. Previous presidents have done this such as Roosevelt "fireside chats" and ANYONE in the nation can give a direct response back to the posts.

Okay now this is funny, how could this slip by the careful scruntiny of the editors at the "great" Washington Post? More fire for the angry people at the rally.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/w ... ver-961023

Washington Post Express Puts Male Symbol on Women's Inauguration March Cover
The Washington Post Express, a free daily tabloid given to mass transit passengers in D.C., drew ire on Thursday with its cover about the Women's March on Washington that mistakenly featured the male gender symbol. Not long after the cover was tweeted from the Express account, the publication came under fire by social media users for the offensive mistake. The Express did not outright apologize for the cover but tweeted that it was "embarrassed." The tabloid later tweeted what the cover should have looked like, featuring the correct gender symbol.

[Blu]

What right does Bannon, a media lackey, have in joining the NSC? Fuck that, he has no credentials. Consider him to the Joint Chief of Staff in comparison. This is a power grab.