What's new
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 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Trump's Agenda's are alive and well.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Millions of small children just watched two girls kiss and had their innocence broken this morning. <a href="https://twitter.com/nbc?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nbc</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/Macys?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Macys</a> just blindsided parents who expected this to be a family program, so they could push their agenda on little kids. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/macysthanksgivingdayparade?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#macysthanksgivingdayparade</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MacysDayParade?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MacysDayParade</a> <a href="https://t.co/EmCLSfNmAj">pic.twitter.com/EmCLSfNmAj</a></p>— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/1065623392072675328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm opposed to that. Not the two girls kissing, but the stupid dance numbers and American Idol rejects singing when it's supposed to be a goddammed parade.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Not much love here for the oil industry. Oil delivers a commodity creating no new innovation value itself...is highly subsidized even though its stupidly profitable as its rife with collusion...and aids global warming by competing with clean energy. At least, the rest of the economy will have lower operating costs.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Trump's Agenda's are alive and well.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Millions of small children just watched two girls kiss and had their innocence broken this morning. <a href="https://twitter.com/nbc?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nbc</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/Macys?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Macys</a> just blindsided parents who expected this to be a family program, so they could push their agenda on little kids. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/macysthanksgivingdayparade?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#macysthanksgivingdayparade</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MacysDayParade?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MacysDayParade</a> <a href="https://t.co/EmCLSfNmAj">pic.twitter.com/EmCLSfNmAj</a></p>— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForAmerica/status/1065623392072675328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Yawn. Little kids don't give a **** about two women kissing.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Even the scientists who still work for dump are now sounding the alarm.

Looking for him to double down again on coal in response

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...nds-alarm-on-growing-impact-of-climate-change

"Risks are often highest for those that are already vulnerable, including low-income communities, some communities of color, children, and the elderly," it reads, citing multiple scientific studies. "Climate change threatens to exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities that result in higher exposure and sensitivity to extreme weather and climate-related events and other changes."

They could have just said that Puerto Ricans will continue to take it up the tailpipe.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Number of rallies Trump has held since inauguration <br>60 <br><br>Number of tweets Trump has sent since inauguration <br>5,341 <br><br>Number of Vietnam deferments Trump has received <br>5 <br><br>Number of times Trump has visited US combat trips <br>0 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FridayBriefing?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FridayBriefing</a> <a href="https://t.co/trXpbEplN3">pic.twitter.com/trXpbEplN3</a></p>— Luna Lovegood ✨💥✨ (@LunaLuvgood2017) <a href="https://twitter.com/LunaLuvgood2017/status/1066127189718921218?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Migrants at the Southern Border will not be allowed into the United States until their claims are individually approved in court. We only will allow those who come into our Country legally. Other than that our very strong policy is Catch and Detain. No “Releasing” into the U.S...</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1066478927143677952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">....All will stay in Mexico. If for any reason it becomes necessary, we will CLOSE our Southern Border. There is no way that the United States will, after decades of abuse, put up with this costly and dangerous situation anymore!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1066480700046655488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Hey Trump!!! **** off.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Let them come in legally. I'm fine with that. I encourage that.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I admittedly do not follow the immigration debate that closely and do not know much about immigration law in this country, but what about the following proposal for immigration:

1) Build the wall (see below for an idea on how to pay for it).
2) Build several "Immigration Centers" at major points along the border that would function somewhat similar to Ellis Island (i.e. immigrants could be screened for diseases, criminal backgrounds, terrorist sympathies, etc.). After a certain "clearing period" the immigrants could enter the country for various purposes, including potential citizenship.
3) Any "illegal" immigrant currently in the country would be required to either visit an Immigration Center or visit a local Immigration Office within a certain period of time. If they report, they would be eligible for citizenship/work visa/etc. immediately. Their "illegal" status would not be held against them. They would also be required to pay federal/state taxes immediately. Failure to report could result in immediate deportation.
4) A certain percentage of the tax revenue created by new immigrants and formerly "illegal" immigrants would be used to pay for the wall, as well as the increased costs to maintain the Immigration Centers.

Obviously, this is a very basic rubric. It's actually an argument that I made in debate class in high school (~1999), so it's a couple decades old and hasn't really been given much thought recently. However, it was something I was thinking about recently, and I'm curious what everyone would think of such a "solution" and what modifications people would have to make it more realistic/palatable/fair/etc.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I admittedly do not follow the immigration debate that closely and do not know much about immigration law in this country, but what about the following proposal for immigration:

1) Build the wall (see below for an idea on how to pay for it).
2) Build several "Immigration Centers" at major points along the border that would function somewhat similar to Ellis Island (i.e. immigrants could be screened for diseases, criminal backgrounds, terrorist sympathies, etc.). After a certain "clearing period" the immigrants could enter the country for various purposes, including potential citizenship.
3) Any "illegal" immigrant currently in the country would be required to either visit an Immigration Center or visit a local Immigration Office within a certain period of time. If they report, they would be eligible for citizenship/work visa/etc. immediately. Their "illegal" status would not be held against them. They would also be required to pay federal/state taxes immediately. Failure to report could result in immediate deportation.
4) A certain percentage of the tax revenue created by new immigrants and formerly "illegal" immigrants would be used to pay for the wall, as well as the increased costs to maintain the Immigration Centers.

Obviously, this is a very basic rubric. It's actually an argument that I made in debate class in high school (~1999), so it's a couple decades old and hasn't really been given much thought recently. However, it was something I was thinking about recently, and I'm curious what everyone would think of such a "solution" and what modifications people would have to make it more realistic/palatable/fair/etc.

I could go along with that, along with the resolution that no more illegals come in. They have to go about it strictly legal. I think it's a nice compromise. I don't like that the ones that cheated the system before are here, BUT if they report, are cleared, and granted...alright. That works.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I could go along with that, along with the resolution that no more illegals come in. They have to go about it strictly legal. I think it's a nice compromise. I don't like that the ones that cheated the system before are here, BUT if they report, are cleared, and granted...alright. That works.

I think you would have to have a "General Amnesty" period with something like this:

- Go to a Immigration Center by 01/01/XX to be considered for citizenship. Yes, this is a hard line in the sand and will have people trying to make the date. As long as people are given "sufficient warning", I'm ok with this. I don't want to see abuse of this hard date. You either make it or no. Don't want to open the door to people that are not already here and want to jump on the train at the last second. (yes, I get that I will be classified as a "racist" for this stance).
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I think you would have to have a "General Amnesty" period with something like this:

- Go to a Immigration Center by 01/01/XX to be considered for citizenship. Yes, this is a hard line in the sand and will have people trying to make the date. As long as people are given "sufficient warning", I'm ok with this. I don't want to see abuse of this hard date. You either make it or no. Don't want to open the door to people that are not already here and want to jump on the train at the last second. (yes, I get that I will be classified as a "racist" for this stance).

Yes, the hard line in the sand needs to be drawn. No appeals, extensions, etc. Give warning, then boomdone.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

The wall? Seriously. It's a joke. Look at El Paso. It's a complete ****ing joke they're even thinking of building it.

**** it. Nuke them coming in. Send them all to ****ing Guantanamo.

Oh, and send the statue back to France.
 
Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Don't want to open the door to people that are not already here and want to jump on the train at the last second. (yes, I get that I will be classified as a "racist" for this stance).

Under the proposal, new immigrants could legally come into the country, provided they go though the Immigration Centers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top