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 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to respond to something dx said in the last thread, and that I didn't catch up with until now.

You seemed puzzled that Brent said I've been very vocal about Trump in our private conversations, and said that "judging by my Facebook, I haven't." Well, two things:

1. I've made no bones that I think Trump's a piece of crap, just like I made no bones that I thought Obama was a piece of crap. For some reason, for many people, the second part of that cancels out the first, and renders me a Trump fanboi, for God only knows what reason. It's the whole "you're either with Hillary or Trump, YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICES PICK ONE" crapola writ large.

2. I've been consciously keeping my political opinions to myself on Facebook, since the last time I broached that subject, a couple of people who you might be familiar with jumped down my throat and up my butt simultaneously. So I decided that it's just not friggin' worth it. Rest assured that I have no love for Donald Trump.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
The only thing I was wrong about, which I admitted, was that if someone was collecting SS benefits and had no mental record they would not be prohibited from owning guns if they had someone else manage their finances and/or went bankrupt.

I'll say this again, and it's really baffling for me to understand what is so controversial about this, but I really don't see how someone's financial situation should come into the equation on whether they are allowed to own guns or not. If a health professional thinks someone is a risk they should be banned from owning guns, full stop, regardless of how much money they have or when they pay or don't pay their bills. The opposite should also be true.
Click to expand...

It does not. Everyone collects Social Security. Rich, poor, in between. However, if you are getting money from SS(the government), and you are diagnosed as mentally incapable (having to meet what, five criteria for this condition? as people have continually tried to pound into your tiny brain), then the government says you shouldn't be able to own a gun. Just as mentally ill people who aren't collecting SS are prohibited.

Money has nothing to do with it. Being mentally unstable is the criteria.

Like talking to a tree.
 
Last edited:
rufus said:
It does not. Everyone collects Social Security. Rich, poor, in between. However, if you are getting money from SS(the government), and you are diagnosed as mentally incapable (having to meet what, five criteria for this condition? as people have continually tried to pound into your tiny brain, then the government says you shouldn't be able to own a gun. Just as mentally ill people who aren't collecting SS are prohibited.

Money has nothing to do with it. Being mentally unstable is the criteria.

Like talking to a tree.
Click to expand...

I won't be collecting SS as I did not contribute towards it. As a federal employee under the old system (CSRS), we didn't contribute, but paid 7% towards our own retirement system.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

joecct said:
I won't be collecting SS as I did not contribute towards it. As a federal employee under the old system (CSRS), we didn't contribute, but paid 7% towards our own retirement system.
Click to expand...


Well aren't you the little master of the nitpick. Still doesn't change the factuality of what I wrote.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Sally Yates just got the phone call, "You're fired!"

Was anyone surprised?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

joecct said:
Sally Yates just got the phone call, "You're fired!"

Was anyone surprised?
Click to expand...

Good for her. Everything I hear tonight reaffirms my opinion that the White House is dead wrong on this issue and they're going to get creamed in court.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Kepler said:
Great piece.
Click to expand...

It really is.

If I didn't tell you, would you believe he's a former Bush 43 speechwriter?

Frum is great because he usually approaches things with intelligence and often makes me question my views on topics. It's hard to find these days.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

rufus said:
It does not. Everyone collects Social Security. Rich, poor, in between. However, if you are getting money from SS(the government), and you are diagnosed as mentally incapable (having to meet what, five criteria for this condition? as people have continually tried to pound into your tiny brain), then the government says you shouldn't be able to own a gun. Just as mentally ill people who aren't collecting SS are prohibited.

Money has nothing to do with it. Being mentally unstable is the criteria.

Like talking to a tree.
Click to expand...

One of the criteria is not being able to manage one's finances, so yes money does have something to do with it. Also, to appeal a ruling of being judged 'mentally deficient' you need to have money. You can't get the evidence you need to overturn a ruling for free.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The Associated Press @ap: "BREAKING: Trump fires acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she orders Justice Department lawyers to stop defending refugee ban."
Click to expand...


(Apologies, I haven't found a way to embed tweets via mobile.)
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

ScoobyDoo said:
Good for her. Everything I hear tonight reaffirms my opinion that the White House is dead wrong on this issue and they're going to get creamed in court.
Click to expand...

Very possible, but this opinion piece from Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post makes the following argument:

First, the statement seems to indicate that the executive order was reviewed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which apparently concluded that the executive order was lawful. Second, Yates does not claim that she cannot defend the executive order because it is unconstitutional or because the Justice Department would be unable to offer good-faith arguments in defense of its legality. To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not “wise or just.” This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis.
Click to expand...

If so, then regardless of how one feels about the EO, she should have been fired. If she felt she couldn't in good conscience defend the order, she should have resigned and gone public. It's not her call to make whether an order should be followed if it's determined to be legal, which this was.

God, this whole thing is just a clustereff of epic proportions. And Trump's still a buttmunch.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Did anyone post that Trump's first raid on al-Queda resulted in the death of a US Serviceman and one helicopter loss, but he "got 14 of those b*stards!"
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Armadillo said:
Very possible, but this opinion piece from Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post makes the following argument:



If so, then regardless of how one feels about the EO, she should have been fired. If she felt she couldn't in good conscience defend the order, she should have resigned and gone public. It's not her call to make whether an order should be followed if it's determined to be legal, which this was.

God, this whole thing is just a clustereff of epic proportions. And Trump's still a buttmunch.
Click to expand...

That is very interesting, and goes back to my original point many pages ago. It appears he has the legal right to do this. This is a mess, and will continue to be a mess. And before you ask, yes, I will defend his RIGHT to do this, but will not defend the EO itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top