President Trump Thread...

[data]

He said fossil fuels provide energy to poor countries, which allows them to light the streets, which reduces crime. Makes sense to me.

Eliminate the streets, you eliminate crime on the streets.

 

[L.T. Fan]

We've been through this before but you make my point for me when you say that my complaints are "classic liberal diatribe".

It's because you take any attack on Trump as an attack on the Republican party, so the person making the attack must be a liberal and that's the only prism through which you see the political landscape, because to you politics might as well be the Cowboys vs. Redskins.

The difference between you and I is that my opinion wouldn't change whether Trump were a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, or a Sudanese warlord. You only defend him because he had an R next to his name last November and you go through such mental gymnastics to do so because you want to preserve your myopic worldview.

It's ok to have independent opinions beyond whatever party you're registered for and whatever Hannity is saying on any given day.

I said what I said because you make accusations of incompetency and other negative statements but they are all general labels that are so freely bantered about with no actual or specific examples of your reason for doing so. That is exactly what the liberal group has been doing since the election because they think they are entitled to make these claims.

Trump has been attempting to solve the illegal immigration problems, health care shortcomings, tax burdens , etc. you have plenty of his platform actions to comment about but instead use the non specific and same old worn out disparaging remarks that are way to common for those that want to utililize generalities whether they are true or not.

 

[BipolarFuk]

I said what I said because you make accusations of incompetency and other negative statements but they are all general labels that are so freely bantered about with no actual or specific examples of your reason for doing so. That is exactly what the liberal group has been doing since the election because they think they are entitled to make these claims.

Trump has been attempting to solve the illegal immigration problems, health care shortcomings, tax burdens , etc. you have plenty of his platform actions to comment about but instead use the non specific and same old worn out disparaging remarks that are way to common for those that want to utililize generalities whether they are true or not.

Attempting to solve healthcare? Are you fucking serious?

He basically said he would sign any POS bill Congress puked up on his desk.

He doesn't give a fuck who it would hurt or help as long as Obama's signature achievement was tossed out.

 

[bbgun]

The "signature achievement" that cost them a shitload of Congressional and Senate seats. If you like your doctor ...

 

[L.T. Fan]

Attempting to solve healthcare? Are you fucking serious?

He basically said he would sign any POS bill Congress puked up on his desk.

He doesn't give a fuck who it would hurt or help as long as Obama's signature achievement was tossed out.

That’s pure boloney. There were some programs submitted by various committees but the GOP couldn’t agree on any of them. Trump finally threw up his hands and said then let the existing plan run its course.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

He doesn't give a fuck who it would hurt or help as long as Obama's signature achievement was tossed out.

I guess an achievement can be positive or negative. Like Bipo achieved shitting on his neighbors front porch.

 

[NoDak]

I guess an achievement can be positive or negative. Like Bipo achieved shitting on his neighbors front porch.

Nixon's signature achievement was Watergate.

His descendants are so happy, and proud that their family name will forever be linked with this significant event in history.

 

[1bigfan13]

I just saw Trump's comment about the Texas shooter. He said it wasn't a gun issue but rather a mental health issue.

If that's the case, then why did this buffoon overturn legislation earlier in the year that restricted people with mental disorders from buying guns?

Was it just because it was something that was approved under Obama's term in office?

Some things go beyond politics and should be viewed as simple for-the-good-of-the-general-public common sense. This is one of those things, IMO.

 

[Smitty]

I just saw Trump's comment about the Texas shooter. He said it wasn't a gun issue but rather a mental health issue.

If that's the case, then why did this buffoon overturn legislation earlier in the year that restricted people with mental disorders from buying guns?

Was it just because it was something that was approved under Obama's term in office?

Some things go beyond politics and should be viewed as simple for-the-good-of-the-general-public common sense. This is one of those things, IMO.

Trump can't overturn legislation. Did he veto pending legislation, or did he overturn an executive order?

Serious question.

 

[1bigfan13]

Trump can't overturn legislation. Did he veto pending legislation, or did he overturn an executive order?

Serious question.

Back in February he signed a bill that was approved by the House. The bill struck down a regulation that allowed for background checks of persons who'd been identified as having a mental illness. Basically people receiving social security checks for mental illnesses would have had their names run through the national background check database. Granted it wasn't a catch all system but it was at least something.

It would have made it harder for those with mental issues to gain access to guns. You'd think that's exactly the kind of gun legislation that everyone should get behind.....even the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" crowd. Maybe I'm missing something.

I just get tired of going through this same cycle of sitting on our ass doing nothing while things get worse.

 

[Cotton]

Back in February he signed a bill that was approved by the House. The bill struck down a regulation that allowed for background checks of persons who'd been identified as having a mental illness. Basically people receiving social security checks for mental illnesses would have had their names run through the national background check database. Granted it wasn't a catch all system but it was at least something.

It would have made it harder for those with mental issues to gain access to guns. You'd think that's exactly the kind of gun legislation that everyone should get behind.....even the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" crowd. Maybe I'm missing something.

I just get tired of going through this same cycle of sitting on our ass doing nothing while things get worse.

I'm with you on mental health being a trigger for not allowing a gun purchase. Overall, we have mostly ignored mental healthcare in this country, and I think these mass shootings illustrate that.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm with you on mental health being a trigger for not allowing a gun purchase. Overall, we have mostly ignored mental healthcare in this country, and I think these mass shootings illustrate that.

Yeah especially if someone is on the government's teet for mental health issues. Half those people are just scamming the system anyway.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Yeah especially if someone is on the government's teet for mental health issues. Half those people are just scamming the system anyway.

That law was a norrowly focused group of people who had mental problems and were on government entitled programs. It wasn’t a general public application. It wasnt pertaining at all to the segment that may have had a mental disorder categorized to someone who was like the shooter in this and other cases.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

That law was a norrowly focused group of people who had mental problems and were on government entitled programs. It wasn’t a general public application. It wasnt pertaining at all to the segment that may have had a mental disorder categorized to someone who was like the shooter in this and other cases.

Certainly wouldn't have helped in Vegas.

Still doesn't change the fact that I agree with that law.

 

[Smitty]

I would be interested in knowing the counter argument because it does seem like at least throwing up road blocks and requiring more steps for someone who has a mental illness makes sense.

 

[data]

So many mass shootings, Sutherland Springs doesn't even get its own thread.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I would be interested in knowing the counter argument because it does seem like at least throwing up road blocks and requiring more steps for someone who has a mental illness makes sense.

I agree if the legislation in question entailed mental illness across the board but it only addressed those on “welfare” programs funded by the federal government. I suppose there was at least some control since the federal programs allow medical records to be accessed but I am not sure what road blocks there would be to medical records being accessed for those who were not on a federal assistance program. My guess is it would be resisted by the medical profession and rightly so for patient confidential purposes.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

My guess is it would be resisted by the medical profession and rightly so for patient confidential purposes.

Probably and the other side to it is that you don't want to deter people who need mental health help from going out and getting it. If they fear that talking to a doctor about mental health could restrict their ability to go hunting or get a fire arm then they probably don't go and get help.

People on disability are different though. You're not going to deter most of them from getting their monthly check. And they voluntarily give their mental health information to the government.

 

[BipolarFuk]

So many mass shootings, Sutherland Springs doesn't even get its own thread.

Just another crazy white guy.

Thoughts and prayers.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Just another crazy white guy.

Thoughts and prayers.

Lock em all up