Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Trump's positions seem to change with the wind -- sometimes in the same speech, nobody can predict what is decisions will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisanicole1
Honestly, I find nothing wrong with changing positions. I think Trump got stuck because he basically had to move way far right in order to win the republican nomination. He is not far right. He is very moderate. Maybe everyone should stop sticking to their guns so to speak on every topic. Times change, circumstances change and positions need to change accordingly.
Times do not change between the beginning of a speech to the end of a speech. Trump has routinely taken one position one day and the opposite the next and often held inconsistent positions. Here are a few examples:
On multiple occasions he praised Planned Parenthood for doing "very good work for millions of women" but he has also vowed to cut federal funding to the organization.
Trump said he would bring back waterboarding as a means to interrogate suspected terrorists and even said the military must "take out their families" -- a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions but then said the U.S. "is bound by laws and treaties." Well, which is it?
In September 2015, Trump said the U.S. should embrace refugees from war-torn Syria, telling Fox News that "on a humanitarian basis, you have to" but just weeks later, he took the opposite position, saying the U.S. shouldn't let any Syrian refugees in, adding that any refugees already in the country amounted to "the ultimate Trojan horse." Nothing changed in those few weeks.
Trump said he would ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., including immigrants, tourists, business travelers and even Muslim-American citizens traveling back to the U.S. He later said that the ban wouldn’t apply to Muslims who were U.S. citizens and in a further reversal said shortly after that there would be “exceptions,” including Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London. He now says exceptions would also include foreign leaders, government officials and business executives.
I cannot believe how gun owners cry and scream over this.
It's not about me, as a gun owner. That would be very shallow and inconsiderate. It's about the fact that the Democrats proposal on this issue puts not only Second Amendment rights in jeopardy, but even more importantly, puts Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law at risk. No one should be able to be put on a list in secret, with no trial and no court hearing, and no way to ever get off the list.
Quote:
I think there are 1 million on the watch list / no fly list out of 325 million citizens, a whopping 3/10 of 1% of the population that would be affected by this.
So if for some reason the government takes you and throws you in jail for life without trial, you're saying I shouldn't care because you're only one person, right?
Quote:
So the lists have errors - it's each individual job to push hard to get themselves off the list if they have rightful reasons to do so.
Oh, ok, so let's consider the implications of what you're saying. Would it be ok for the government to accuse someone of a crime, and then say that if they can't show evidence proving they are innocent, they'll be punished? One of the bedrock principles of our criminal justice system is that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and you want to turn that on it's head. The burden of proof rests with the government; it's on them to show evidence proving you are guilty, not the other way around.
Not only that, but there is no way for an individual to "push hard to get themselves off the list".... It's as simple as when the AG puts you on the list, you're on the list until they decide, if ever, to take you off it. People generally aren't even told that they are on the list to begin with.
Quote:
It's a small step to attempt the beginning of change, yet I find the gun community a bunch of whiny-a$$ed my rights people who just refuse to want to take steps and measures to affect change. Very sad.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't all that thoroughly considered the dangerous implications posed by your ideas on this subject, but you should. I don't think it's too much to ask that people be afforded due process, and an adequate way for someone to actually get off the list if they are placed on it in error.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 06-16-2016 at 04:50 PM..
There is NO DUE PROCESS involved in being put on a watchlist.
Thank you! Ted Kennedy was on the watch list! A NYT reporter was on "the watch list."
What IS the "Watch List" Have you seen "it"? No? Why not? Because it is not ONE LIST. It is multiple lists from multiple agencies.
There have been tons of errors on "the watch list" due to misspelled or similar names. That results in taking away the due process of law abiding citizens due to no fault of their own.
I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. I think our current Administration was wrong in running guns in Fast and Furious, too! BUT, laws that deny law abiding citizens access to their constitutional rights is NOT acceptable!!
If you read enough of these pro gun/anti gun threads pretty soon you come to the conclusion that Right wing gun owners seem to be the most adamant about any possible gun law revisions.
Left wing guns owners (yes many liberals also own, shoot, carry concealed weapons) seem to be the ones who are willing to accept reasonable gun laws to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, either foreign or domestic.
Call me stupid if you like but I can't imagine anybody thinking it's a good idea to let the bad guys buy guns legally.
Laws against illegal sales (straw purchase) and other illegal sales and posession should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law.
Has nothing to do about who you want for president, common sense makes the most sense..
Sorry, but I just don't think it's reasonable to allow one person, the Attorney General, to have an unrestrained power to add someone to a secret list, based on secret / arbitrary / subjective criteria, with no hearing and no requirement to prove anything or even establish probable cause, that will effectively suppress a Constitutional right of that individual, who will have no recourse, no legal mechanism, to actually get off that list and regain their Constitutional rights, or even the ability to fly / travel for that matter.
No one wants terror suspects to have guns. Find a way to check / balance the governments ability to add people to this list, afford a modicum of due process, and I'd be all for it. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to compromise in any way? We'll be left with the status quo in place.
Honestly, I find nothing wrong with changing positions. I think Trump got stuck because he basically had to move way far right in order to win the republican nomination. He is not far right. He is very moderate. Maybe everyone should stop sticking to their guns so to speak on every topic. Times change, circumstances change and positions need to change accordingly.
LOL, you Trump supporters are hilarious. You complain that "the establishment" are all two faced liars who never say what they mean or do what they say, and that's why you voted for Trump, because he speaks his mind and says what he really means.. But now that Trump is doing exactly the same thing "oh it's ok now"... Not only is it ok, but "it's a good idea"...
You complain that "the establishment" are paid shills, "but TRUMP is self funding!".... But now that Trump says he'll raise $1 Billion dollars, "oh it's ok now" ... because Trump's doing it.
and on and on it goes. Trump supporters are about as wishy washy and inconsistent as their candidate.
At least make the Feds present their evidence to a judge and get his or her approval before being allowed to place someone on a watch list. That's all I am asking, and I don't think it's unreasonable.
It isnt unreasonable, but i think the level of evidence needed to put someone on the list will be so high that the court will basically just be a stepping stone to get off the list rather than a way to keep a suspected terrorist on.
When that constitution was written the population was much smaller.
The GOP's hanging onto old laws as the backbone for their refusal to budge IMO is pathetic based upon the world we live in. Rights across time can't stay level as times and society change. Guns are one of the most glaring signs of this change.
So change the Constitution, you don't get to decide to just ignore it, or say that it means something different now because " I think it's outdated"....
Quote:
And transgenders is another issue for discussion elsewhere, as are many issues that affect people.
No, it isn't. You're making the argument that it's ok to implement these laws even if they do suppress peoples rights, because it only affects 0.3% of the population. Ok, so why should we change our laws for transgender people, when they only make up 0.3% of the population? If it's ok to suppress the rights of people on the no-fly list because there are so few, then it must be ok to suppress the rights of transgender people because there are so few of them. That's your argument, not mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
