What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

I ask that anyone that responds, responds respectfully.

This is not really about race, gender, etc under the law stated earlier. This is about religion. I don't think it's right, but it is being attempted. From what I read in the post, religion is fair game, unless something was omitted for whatever reason (accident, slant, whatever). So, some different wording, some spin here and there in the language......there you have it.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Steve Bannon Now on National Security Council

He must have thought it had something to do with White Nationalists...

Good lord this is getting out of control. It is bad enough that Trump's top adviser leaked classified information...now a hate monger is joining him. At least Hitler waited longer than a week to go full on nuts...
 
BassAle said:
by the way, congress is paving the way for the sale of over 3 million acres of federal land.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I brought it up a few pages ago, but the recent acts of the President have helped this tidbit slide through the House unnoticed.

Best I can tell, Western state Republicans were rummaging through some old Clinton Era paperwork where the Department of the Interior noted there was 3.3 million acres of National Forrest that was inaccessible via logging roads or other means as defined by some old NPS rule (something like five miles or more from the nearest road). It's pretty vague as the last time this was discussed was 2008 so electronic media referencing a 1998 article was shaky at best.

Anyway, there seemed to be some mineral rights that private entities were interested in, but they wouldn't have access to the land without waivers through parkland. So the "wasted land" remained protected as National Park Land for the last 20 years.

Cut to today, and the Republican Rep from Utah proposed the bill to sell off the "worthless" park land.

This, coupled with the House of Rep Rules change that national park land was valued at $0 dollars means Congress is selling land to the highest bidder.

You would think Trump of all people would understand the value of owning property (even "worthless" property in Idaho), but Congress is just going to let the land and mineral rights go for pennies on the dollar.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

aparch said:
Thank you. I brought it up a few pages ago, but the recent acts of the President have helped this tidbit slide through the House unnoticed.

Best I can tell, Western state Republicans were rummaging through some old Clinton Era paperwork where the Department of the Interior noted there was 3.3 million acres of National Forrest that was inaccessible via logging roads or other means as defined by some old NPS rule (something like five miles or more from the nearest road). It's pretty vague as the last time this was discussed was 2008 so electronic media referencing a 1998 article was shaky at best.

Anyway, there seemed to be some mineral rights that private entities were interested in, but they wouldn't have access to the land without waivers through parkland. So the "wasted land" remained protected as National Park Land for the last 20 years.

Cut to today, and the Republican Rep from Utah proposed the bill to sell off the "worthless" park land.

This, coupled with the House of Rep Rules change that national park land was valued at $0 dollars means Congress is selling land to the highest bidder.

You would think Trump of all people would understand the value of owning property (even "worthless" property in Idaho), but Congress is just going to let the land and mineral rights go for pennies on the dollar.
Click to expand...

That makes me angry on many levels...

But sadly So Does Stuff Like This.

Of course liberals are too busy ripping Jerry Seinfeld over a non-offensive tweet to really care...
 
Handyman said:
That makes me angry on many levels...
Click to expand...
If you're interested in following the sale of the park land, it's HR 621.


And OH! I missed his follow up bill, HR 622:To terminate the law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management

Because we can't be letting those pesky park Rangers enforce federal laws now, can we?!?
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Multiple sources reporting CA is exploring not paying federal taxes if they're withheld funding over sanctuary cities.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Handyman said:
That makes me angry on many levels...

But sadly So Does Stuff Like This.

Of course liberals are too busy ripping Jerry Seinfeld over a non-offensive tweet to really care...
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, if you type in Jerry Seinfeld to Google news, all the articles are from right wing sites talking about how he got slammed, nothing from sites talking about the actual tweet.

Sorta kinda related, someone I know on Facebook who posted today asking when FB would go back to people posting about themselves rather than their "garbage political viewpoints" mere hours after he posted about how Bill Nye should stop talking about politics because he doesn't know anything and 'he's actually a frckn psycho nut." I'll have you take a guess where he's standing on this whole immigration issue.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Brenthoven said:
I ask that anyone that responds, responds respectfully.

This is not really about race, gender, etc under the law stated earlier. This is about religion. I don't think it's right, but it is being attempted. From what I read in the post, religion is fair game, unless something was omitted for whatever reason (accident, slant, whatever). So, some different wording, some spin here and there in the language......there you have it.
Click to expand...

By the activity in this thread, and the lack of any support/opposition to this post....yep. Only offer input when it serves for anti-Trump stuff. Got it.

Again, don't like what he's doing, but believe it or not, some of it IS covered under current law.
 
Brenthoven said:
By the activity in this thread, and the lack of any support/opposition to this post....yep. Only offer input when it serves for anti-Trump stuff. Got it.

Again, don't like what he's doing, but believe it or not, some of it IS covered under current law.
Click to expand...
If he wanted to be consistent, why leave out Saudi Arabia, Egypt, you know the nations who have supplied people who carried out attacks?
It's inconsistent bs and you know it
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
If he wanted to be consistent, why leave out Saudi Arabia, Egypt, you know the nations who have supplied people who carried out attacks?
It's inconsistent bs and you know it
Click to expand...

I don't know why he left out those countries. I'm saying he wants Muslims out, and as an idiot, he picked out some countries on a map. However, under the law's terms that were posted earlier, it appears to be legal if the lawyers/pols state it in a religious way, rather than an "origin country" (etc) way. Yet, I hear no cry of BS on that front. All I hear is "racist" or "can't do that b/c of country!" Those people are correct. However, if the admin frames it religiously......guess what?
 
Brenthoven said:
I don't know why he left out those countries. I'm saying he wants Muslims out, and as an idiot, he picked out some countries on a map. However, under the law's terms that were posted earlier, it appears to be legal if the lawyers/pols state it in a religious way, rather than an "origin country" (etc) way. Yet, I hear no cry of BS on that front. All I hear is "racist" or "can't do that b/c of country!" Those people are correct. However, if the admin frames it religiously......guess what?
Click to expand...
He has business interests in the nations he left out. It's not hard to find.
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
He has business interests in the nations he left out. It's not hard to find.
Click to expand...

Fine. So be it. My point still stands. If the legal teams tweak the words in the law, he's legal to ban Muslims, as I understand it.

And btw, that's still not racist, as that would mean one is assuming all Muslims are one color.
 
Brenthoven said:
Fine. So be it. My point still stands. If the legal teams tweak the words in the law, he's legal to ban Muslims, as I understand it.

And btw, that's still not racist, as that would mean one is assuming all Muslims are one color.
Click to expand...
I'm no legal scholar but it took a federal judge what, half a day to rule otherwise if it was so legal
 
Brenthoven said:
I don't know why he left out those countries. I'm saying he wants Muslims out, and as an idiot, he picked out some countries on a map. However, under the law's terms that were posted earlier, it appears to be legal if the lawyers/pols state it in a religious way, rather than an "origin country" (etc) way. Yet, I hear no cry of BS on that front. All I hear is "racist" or "can't do that b/c of country!" Those people are correct. However, if the admin frames it religiously......guess what?
Click to expand...

What is the actual precedence to ban people of a specific religion?
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
I'm no legal scholar but it took a federal judge what, half a day to rule otherwise if it was so legal
Click to expand...

Have you read what I wrote? The legal teams will tweak the language, IF they really want it to pass.The law, per Slap Shots (?) post did NOT cover religion. It covered everything else, and there is where the legalese comes in.....
 
Re: POTUS 45.1 - You take the high road and I'll take the low road

This is sloppy for a quote, but this snippet from Slap's post:

Trump points to a 1952 law allowing the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens”, says Bier, but this ignores restrictions placed by Congress in 1965, stating no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence”.

I see NOWHERE does it dictate religion. And that's the big issue. Trump, IMO, is all for banning people of this religion, but he's too stupid to know how to do it properly (and again, I don't agree with him whatsoever).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top