Happy Inauguration Day Eve!!

[Rich Z]

Ah yes, now I understand your point! Thank you for clearing it up. It's a good point, however, I think of it this way (if we are continuing our speeding analogy):
Imposing no speed limit is analogous to allowing any refugee in the country without thorough screening

Imposing a speed limit is analogous like the vetting process. It substantially lowers the risk to driving, while still allowing the activity to continue.

Banning driving all together= the refugee ban.

I think that sometimes it's easy to forget that who you're arguing with is a real person, and that is when debates get out of hand. I most definitely understand your position, and completely respect, though I disagree with it. And of course terrorism is a very real problem, but I don't agree with shutting down the influx of refugees, especially those who have been waiting years to get in. I'll be happy once the ban is lifted.

I'm giving Donald Trump as much of a chance as I can, but so far we basically fundamentally disagree on just about everything. Perhaps he'll change my mind.

I can't speak much for how the country is changing since I haven't been around for too terribly long. I do, however, feel as though id rather be alive today than any other decade (more opportunities for me, especially in my field of study, than there was in the past). I will admit, I'm a bit afraid of what the future will bring. I see little of the past that I'd like to see return to the present.

I did hear you shut down SerpenCo somewhere I believe. My dad was really into corn snakes while I was growing up and I think he had one or two from you. Now I have 12, haha, so I guess it rubbed off on me. I just didn't know if you still had any as pets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You DO know that the ban is temporary, don't you? And there are clauses in Trump's order that give the vetting authorities the capability of accepting refugees when individual and specific cases warrant it. I think that is fair, under the circumstances. So your analogy of banning driving altogether would instead match up with stopping ALL immigration from ALL countries. This order by Trump just put the brakes on some selected countries that even Obama a while back determined were problematic concerning terrorists.

Realistically, however, terrorists can likely get to this country through a number of other entry points. This stopgap solution will likely only stop the unsophisticated ones or the ones without much financial backing to get the paperwork counterfeited in order to come in through another country with fake ID. Like everything else, nothing is ever going to be perfect. But I think Trump is committed to live up to his campaign promises, and it looks like he does plan to at least make the effort. I think you do have to hand that one to him.

So how would you handle the situation of refugees with possible (probable?) terrorists hiding within the influx? Especially when there were no records accompanying the refugees, and no way, at present, to obtain any? In other words, what would you have done in Trump's shoes? You would just open up the gates and let everyone in, regardless of this issue of peoples that cannot be vetted at all at present? Did you read the actual text of Trump's order?

Yeah, well, I've been around for 66 years now, and believe me, there have been quite a few changes. And quite a few of them were not for the better. At least in my opinion. Of course, no one would ever be unanimously agreeable to any list that anyone would make up with a positive and negative column. There are actually a lot of people in this country who think socialism is just a real peachy idea.

No, Connie and I both decided that we had had enough of taking care of animals. We have absolutely NO pets whatsoever. The animals tied us down SO much for decades, and we decided we didn't want any strings attached to our retirement. So we can go away for a month or so if we want now. With the animals, we could MAYBE get away for three days, but only at certain times of the year. And even then, the work we had to do when we got back really killed the thrill of going away for even a day or two.

Yeah, I still do miss the hatching season, but all the rest of it still gives me nightmares.

Anyway, take care....

 

[Nova_C]

State Department has revoked all visas for anyone not in the US who are from the seven named countries, including students:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...d-countries/D6NBbEBA1HrF4IUrJjuljI/story.html

Not refugees. Already vetted and approved to enter the country. Already living here and paying for school. Banned.

Tell me again this about refugees.

 

[Nova_C]

My mistake:

http://www.aila.org/infonet/dos-revocation-of-visas-in-accordance-exec-order

The text of the memo appears to mean that all visas, save certain categories (Such as diplomatic) have been revoked, and legal residents of the US could be targets for deportation, even if they currently reside in the US.

 

[Rich Z]

State Department has revoked all visas for anyone not in the US who are from the seven named countries, including students:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...d-countries/D6NBbEBA1HrF4IUrJjuljI/story.html

Not refugees. Already vetted and approved to enter the country. Already living here and paying for school. Banned.

Tell me again this about refugees.

Why? You have already stated that you don't care about the INTENTIONS of Trump's actions, so why bother? You've obviously made up your mind that you won't like anything that Trump does, merely because it is TRUMP, and no other reason.

And why should you get so worked up about this anyway? Canada doesn't have enough problems to keep you focused and interested in your own back yard? Why don't you just campaign for the Canadian government to take up the slack in refuge immigration because of the USA temporarily blocking it on this side of the border? Yeah, that's the ticket!

I voted for Trump because I supported what he pledged to do in his campaign promises. It is extremely heartening to see that he is trying to do exactly what he promised to do, unlike many others who have preceded him for that office. Honestly from what I can see, there are a lot of people that appear to just be sore losers because Hillary Clinton lost the election and they are hell bent to try to make Donald Trump's presidency as difficult as possible.

They are a pretty disappointing bunch of people, in my opinion. Kind of makes you wonder what exactly the term "liberal" really means these days. Obvious the dictionary's interpretation of that word has nothing at all to do with today's reality.

open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

Trump is trying to CHANGE the direction this country has been going in with the goal of making the USA a better place. And the "liberals" want to stop that change and continue with the status quo from Obama and positively would have been continued with Hillary Clinton. Go figure. :face_palm_02:

 

[Rich Z]

 

[Rich Z]

 

[Rich Z]

And in case there was any doubt about Presidents Clinton and Obama saying the very same things that Trump is getting slammed by the liberal left about...

 

[Nova_C]

Ah, yes, the "liberal left". Complaining about a grand conspiracy by creating a monolithic enemy out of whole cloth is textbook authoritarianism. Hm, just like how Trump and Bannon are painting anyone who doesn't simply roll over and do what they say.

Remember everything that happens here. Remember that everything that happens is what you wanted. What you asked for. Trump and Bannon are going to destroy everything unique and beautiful about the United States.

 

[Rich Z]

Ah, yes, the "liberal left". Complaining about a grand conspiracy by creating a monolithic enemy out of whole cloth is textbook authoritarianism. Hm, just like how Trump and Bannon are painting anyone who doesn't simply roll over and do what they say.

Remember everything that happens here. Remember that everything that happens is what you wanted. What you asked for. Trump and Bannon are going to destroy everything unique and beautiful about the United States.

Destroying what exactly? The liberal globalist agenda? You call that "beautiful"? Well, seems that enough people disagreed in order to get Trump elected here in the USA, now doesn't it?

Concerning the apparent alternative had Hillary been elected to POTUS, I am EXTREMELY OK with Trump's stated plans and agenda.

But seems like the violent faction of the liberal left and their string pullers are just not content to wait and see what happens, now are they?

With any luck, the following will be come law all across the USA. But certainly unlikely in the notable "blue" states, I would imagine.



Seems like there is an excellent opportunity for a company to manufacture and sell "cow catchers" for automobiles. :laugh:

 

[Nova_C]

The president of the United States has declared that all but one of the prominant newspapers in the nation are 'enemies of the people'.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

That doesn't chill you at all? You're fine with your government declaring the news as the enemy? Isn't freedom of the press one of the underpinnings of American democracy?

Although, considering you just posted that you supported being able to run people down in the street for daring to protest the government without consequence, perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree. It seems you prefer unquestioning obedience to the government. Do not question. Do not resist. Obey.

What happened to the man who just a short while ago was talking about the rights of the people?

 

[Rich Z]

The president of the United States has declared that all but one of the prominant newspapers in the nation are 'enemies of the people'.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

That doesn't chill you at all? You're fine with your government declaring the news as the enemy? Isn't freedom of the press one of the underpinnings of American democracy?

Actually I agree with Trump concerning the captive media outlets such as CNN, CBS, etc. In my opinion, they are merely sources of propaganda and don't do any real sort of new reporting whatsoever. They have been bought and paid for by enemies of our Republican form of nationalistic government, and are actively trying to destroy our way of life. Well, at least our way of live before this "false news" onslaught has been launched.

Although, considering you just posted that you supported being able to run people down in the street for daring to protest the government without consequence, perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree. It seems you prefer unquestioning obedience to the government. Do not question. Do not resist. Obey.

What happened to the man who just a short while ago was talking about the rights of the people?

You obviously misunderstood (purposely or otherwise) the gist of that proposed law. Protestors have no right to impede anyone's progress on public streets, not do they have any right to instill fear of harm to persons or property in that pursuit. Anyone engaging in such actions revokes any rights of protection against MY trying to protect my person and property. THEIR rights end where MINE begin. So if I am in my vehicle in any place I have a lawful right to be, going to some place I also have a right to be going to, and someone is illegally impeding my progress in an aggressive manner with a potential for damage to my property or harm to my person, then I may very well choose to exit the scene, even if it means I have to go OVER them in order to do so. Quite frankly, this just seems like a natural corollary of the CASTLE DOCTRINE, which is the law of the land in quite a few states, and hopefully will become federal law sooner or later (if Constitutional in that jurisdiction). I do NOT have to retreat simply because you are in my way.

How is that for my position on "rights of the people"? Unfortunately, I am just not sympathetic to what appears to be YOUR type of people.

It has nothing at all to do with the government. It has to do with MY rights as a citizen of the USA. Quite frankly, I don't CARE what the protests would be about at all. The same would apply to anyone protesting FOR something I truly believed in. That does not give them the right to impede my progress or potentially subject me to damage or harm. If someone comes at me with a baseball bat while I am in my vehicle, and my only escape is OVER him, do you SERIOUSLY think I am going to roll down the window and ask him WHY he is doing that?

The law mentioned above is intended to do much the same as the Castle Doctrine law concerning the presumption of intent and liability.

 

[Rich Z]

No surprise that Obama doesn't want to lose control of the power he had as POTUS.

 

[OregonSnake]

The proposed law does not give you the right to purposely run over a protestor or group of protestors. If they're simply standing in the center of the street protesting, and you notice them and can safely stop, you cannot knowingly run them down. You can call the police, and the police can arrest them for impeding traffic. But you cannot just run them over. That proposed law protects people that accidentally run down a protestor, I.e., if they step out in the center of the road while you are driving at a legal speed and you have no time to stop. You cannot, however, legally and knowingly run people down for standing in your way. Just call the police and let them take care of them.

If the protestors are acting aggressively and you feel like your life is in danger, that is more of a case of self defense. From what I understand, this law does not apply to instances of self defense. It only protects people who accidentally run down people obstructing roadways.

It will be interesting in the future to see if these laws will be considered constitutional.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nova_C]

No surprise that Obama doesn't want to lose control of the power he had as POTUS.

I'm actually amazed that you think this is real. That you think there's a massive conspiracy. That the world really is out to get you. And I don't know how I can possibly convince you that the world is not nearly as bad as you seem to believe.

There isn't a monolithic 'left' out to discredit Republicans. There isn't a secret group of child molesters run by the Clintons. There isn't some kind of coup in the making. And certainly all news that disagrees with what you believe isn't lying to you. At some point everyone must have the humility to stop what they're doing and think, "What if I'm wrong about what I believe?"

What if you're wrong about Trump?

 

[Nova_C]

Regarding the law concerning running over protesters, I don't think anyone has the right to just run someone down if they're 'impeding' you. We all live in the same world, one person's right does not just overrule another's. We share this space, whether you like it or not.

And if they're coming at you with a bat, then self defense already covers that. So this law is unnecessary, then?

 

[Rich Z]

I'm actually amazed that you think this is real. That you think there's a massive conspiracy. That the world really is out to get you. And I don't know how I can possibly convince you that the world is not nearly as bad as you seem to believe.

There isn't a monolithic 'left' out to discredit Republicans. There isn't a secret group of child molesters run by the Clintons. There isn't some kind of coup in the making. And certainly all news that disagrees with what you believe isn't lying to you. At some point everyone must have the humility to stop what they're doing and think, "What if I'm wrong about what I believe?"

What if you're wrong about Trump?

Funny how the word "conspiracy" has come to mean anything that someone believes is non-factual. So you are saying that it is impossible for there to BE a conspiracy? That everyone on this planet is open and above board with their plans, no matter what they are? You actually believe, I suppose, that all of the demonstrations against Trump are completely spontaneous with actual and solely grass root support by the locals? I also presume that in like kind, you do not believe that someone with the means and opportunity would not have designs that they would prefer were secret, and such people would NEVER, EVER meet and confer with others of like minds in secret?

Anyway, sure, I might be wrong about Trump. Are you seriously claiming that you believe the USA would be better off had Hillary won the presidency? Well how about this. We will give you the Clintons, for FREE, and you can have them run your country. How about that? Won't that be just peachy?

 

[Rich Z]

The proposed law does not give you the right to purposely run over a protestor or group of protestors. If they're simply standing in the center of the street protesting, and you notice them and can safely stop, you cannot knowingly run them down. You can call the police, and the police can arrest them for impeding traffic. But you cannot just run them over. That proposed law protects people that accidentally run down a protestor, I.e., if they step out in the center of the road while you are driving at a legal speed and you have no time to stop. You cannot, however, legally and knowingly run people down for standing in your way. Just call the police and let them take care of them.

If the protestors are acting aggressively and you feel like your life is in danger, that is more of a case of self defense. From what I understand, this law does not apply to instances of self defense. It only protects people who accidentally run down people obstructing roadways.

It will be interesting in the future to see if these laws will be considered constitutional.

My intention would be to continue on my journey. If someone were to jump in front of me, I would try not to hit them, but would not do so if such an attempt would possibly cause me to lose control of the car. Honestly, I don't want to damage my vehicles from impact with some idiot, but if they choose to commit suicide in that manner, I'm not inclined to join them. If someone wants to jump out into a stream of vehicular traffic, they really should be good a dodging 3,000 pound hunks of metal moving towards them. If a group of people are blocking the road, then I will slow down enough to not directly injure anyone, but I will not stop completely for fear that they would try to damage the car, take control of the vehicle, or attempt to injure myself and passenger. They will have ample opportunity to get out of the way. If they choose not to, that will be their problem. Anyone who does not have the legal authority to do so attempting to stop my vehicle will be considered as a threat to do damage or bodily injury.

But of course, unless the person was a perceived threat, any injury to them from my vehicle would certainly be accidental. The fly in the ointment there, why would anyone be in the middle of the street trying to stop me unless they WERE a potrential threat?

In all seriousness, I would actively try to avoid any such events, and areas where they are likely to take place. But shtuff happens, and if I find myself in a predicament while in my vehicle, my intention will be for my vehicle to get me the hell out of there, regardless of anyone trying to stop me.

As I mentioned before, this is a logical extension of the Castle Doctrine (or Stand Your Ground Law). I don't believe any distinction has been made on what someone is permitted to use in order to prevent threats of violence and injury from another party. A vehicle could be just as effective as a Glock in certain circumstances. In any event, I'm sure the debate over this would be interesting to view. I'm sure the bleeding heart liberals are going ballistic over it.

 

[Nova_C]

Funny how the word "conspiracy" has come to mean anything that someone believes is non-factual. So you are saying that it is impossible for there to BE a conspiracy? That everyone on this planet is open and above board with their plans, no matter what they are? You actually believe, I suppose, that all of the demonstrations against Trump are completely spontaneous with actual and solely grass root support by the locals? I also presume that in like kind, you do not believe that someone with the means and opportunity would not have designs that they would prefer were secret, and such people would NEVER, EVER meet and confer with others of like minds in secret?

Anyway, sure, I might be wrong about Trump. Are you seriously claiming that you believe the USA would be better off had Hillary won the presidency? Well how about this. We will give you the Clintons, for FREE, and you can have them run your country. How about that? Won't that be just peachy?

You just posted a video claiming Obama is organizing a coup. That is the definition of a conspiracy. You claimed earlier that all the major news organizations in the US (Save Fox, I suppose) are trying to discredit Republicans. That is a conspiracy. You are claiming conspiracies, just without saying the word.

Whether or not the US would be better off with Hillary is immaterial. She lost the election. It's over. Trump is the president. Trump should be held responsible for what his administration does or does not do. President Truman had a plaque on his desk that read "The buck stops here". So the buck stops with Trump.

 

[Rich Z]

What if you're wrong about Trump?

I was thinking about this last night after I closed down the computers and went to bed.

What do you mean by that? Obviously you believe that I believe something about Trump that you do not believe. So tell me, what is it about Trump's claims, persona, agenda, or whatever that YOU do not believe? And what if YOU are wrong? I know we have all come to accept that politicians will lie and are inherently corrupt as a species, but I believe one of the selling points about Trump is that he was not, and is not, a career politician.

I believe that Trump was elected (and by a landslide not accurately depicted by the popular vote) exactly because he promised REAL change in the direction of this country, and not the destructive type of change that Obama wanted. Obviously you do not believe this, so what exactly DO you believe about Trump? And what is it that you find unbelievable and why?

 

[Rich Z]

You just posted a video claiming Obama is organizing a coup. That is the definition of a conspiracy. You claimed earlier that all the major news organizations in the US (Save Fox, I suppose) are trying to discredit Republicans. That is a conspiracy. You are claiming conspiracies, just without saying the word.

Then I will say the word. Yes, there ARE conspiracies afoot against Trump. The bias of the mainstream media was extremely obvious. In one video a member of CNN even openly admits it.



So again, YOU do not believe that conspiracies exist? You do not believe that conspiracies CAN exist? How so? You seriously believe that everyone in power and striving for power are all completely above board and tell everyone their plans and strategies? You believe that no one, or no groups of people, with large amounts of wealth and subsequent influence could ever possibly try to control anything related to our leadership, policies, and social direction behind the scenes?

If so, I have to admit you must have a very interesting view of the world from behind your eyes.

Whether or not the US would be better off with Hillary is immaterial. She lost the election. It's over. Trump is the president. Trump should be held responsible for what his administration does or does not do. President Truman had a plaque on his desk that read "The buck stops here". So the buck stops with Trump.

Sorry, but it IS material. It appears that Hillary and Trump are polar opposites. The presumption is that people voted for Trump and against Hillary based on what they perceived about the respective camp's stated and perceived plans for how they intended to try to run this country.

So again, do you believe that the USA would have been better off had Hillary won the election? Since you are obviously anti-Trump, then certainly you must believe someone else would be better as POTUS. So if your choice is not Hillary, then who is it?

Frankly, I think Trump doesn't have any problems with the buck stopping at his desk. As long as he actually can do something about it. I believe he ran for office specifically to be able to take on that job and make changes to this country that will turn it away from the path towards globalism and the destruction of our way of life to make us fit in better with the world order planned. Oh yeah, conspiracy again, but you don't believe in those. Anyway, I think he is going to have a very tough time, because Washington D.C. is going to be a rather hostile place for him to work. Yeah, "conspiracy" again. But something like 98 percent of the voters in Washington D.C. voted for Hillary, so I think any rational person would take that as a glaring sign that Trump is in hostile territory in the White House. And with Obama choosing to remain in the city, the hostiles will certainly have a ring leader readily available.

I guess it will be interesting to watch what sort of conflicts Obama might get involved in concerning Trump's administration. Conspiracy or not, something tells me that Obama got addicted to the taste of power and will not be content living in relative obscurity in retirement. So we shall see.