ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Those expensive weapons like nuclear missiles and submarines wont sell themselves. Need a formidable enemy and Russia is it. This is why every think tank who's paid by defense contractors is like no way Trump should meet Putin. What some people call the "deep state" is just bunch of gov employees, defense contractors, think tanks, and academic grants swimming in same pool to keep conflict alive for cold hard cash.

If Russia becomes a vassal like they were in the 1990s under Yeltsin then China will get the Russian treatment.

Yet another reason to keep gov small AF. Power corrupts and all that. And nothing on earth is more powerful than the US government so it's most corrupt.

It's the same corrupt shit with all the social programs. Very little of dollars gets to people who actually need it. I've posted articles here about $750K homeless beds, each unit so of course they can't build but a few. Who gets it? Contractor who has councilman's/mayors brother as a partner and so on.

I suppose it never occurred to them to put 750K in an annuity and the homeless guy could live at the ritz for the rest of his life?

BTW I'm a contractor myself and for 750K I could build 75 beds and still pocket 100K profit. Granted would be brutalism architecture and no so pretty but they do same for 1.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Spoiler

16 28

Good read by my favorite conservative author Comedian colonel lawyer
Kurt Schlichter
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/07/02/draft-n2496373

Everyone knows I don't really like Trump but Imagine if "never Trumpers" won - or why ideological purity is BS

"

Everything they told us was wrong. If we had done what they demanded, we would not be revelling in the joy of conserva-victory. We would be resigned to yet another defeat. “But Gorsuch” indeed, you never-been-kissed band of losers.

If we had listened to Never Trump, we’d have voted for Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit and we would not only have Merrick Garland (or worse) on the SCOTUS but now she’d be picking another pinko who agrees with the lib bloc that the First Amendment has hitherto unknown asterisks that prevent conservatives from using it, that a bunch of other rights that aren’t in the Constitution actually are, and that the Second Amendment stuff about not infringing on our right to keep and bear arms really means libs can totally infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Let’s leave aside our booming economy and crushing ISIS and pulling out of the climate scam and maybe peace with North Korea. Just these two Supreme Court picks makes Trump the most important and successful conservative president since The Big R. And we wouldn’t have any of it if that nattering pack of insufferable sissies had had their way.

So what do you guys think about HR 6054? It's currently under review by the House Judiciary Committee.

My personal opinion: I think wearing a mask while committing a violent or destructive crime should have the same punishment as the crime being committed (including any mandatory minimum), not a flat up to 15 years imprisonment plus fine -- which is either very or slightly excessive depending on the crime in question. In the case of simple assault (no deadly weapon, no serious bodily injury, victim isn't a minor) this would double six months into a year; with a deadly weapon, could double 10 years to 20.

That said, with such an amendment, I'd like to see it pass, but at the moment I'm actually in the "nay" camp. Sorry (not sorry), but I don't think a masked protestor should get 15 years for nothing more than deliberately pushing someone.

Crimes such as the masked lefty antifa types, are crimes in and of themselves true, even without the use of masks.

But to mask yourself is a massive red flag the crime was premeditated and as such all antifa type masked attacks should involve higher than normal penalties.

When a mask is the difference between a guy harming someone or not, wearing masks while harming people just needs to be a bigger offense.

ON THE OTHER HAND... these masked hood rats are good at helping to elect republicans because they make democrats look so bad.

So, the more the merrier.

For now.

AND ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW TRUMP SPEAKS ABOUT SO MANY NATO NATIONS NOT PAYING THEIR BILLS, OVER A SIMPLE BREAKFAST, AND ALL LEFTIIES IN EUROPE TREMBLE?

haha. It's good being on top, with a president whose claim to fame isn't "I organized ghettos, hear me whine about life".

†

(EDIT, many areas in USA actually require all to remove masks... this is a better way to go, except for Halloween)

wearing a mask does not mean you are gonna commit a crime, what kind of ridiculous thinking is that?? It just means you want to not be recognized. Now, if you plan to commit a crime, you will most likely want to veil yourself to not be easily recognizable but the act of being veiled does not mean you intent to commit a crime.

As such, being masked shouldn't in any circumstance be considered as a proof of intention.

"

faerwin wrote:

wearing a mask does not mean you are gonna commit a crime, what kind of ridiculous thinking is that?? It just means you want to not be recognized. Now, if you plan to commit a crime, you will most likely want to veil yourself to not be easily recognizable but the act of being veiled does not mean you intent to commit a crime.

As such, being masked shouldn't in any circumstance be considered as a proof of intention.

HR 6054 would not make it illegal to wear a mask generally, nor does it declare intent for people who wear masks. It would make it illegal to wear a mask WHILE committing certain crimes.

To me, that makes no sense at all and seems like a bullshit excuses to increase jailing time for no reason.

What next, makes it illegal to wear clothes while doing a crime?

I'm all for punishing the person that commit the crime but don't add ridiculous factors such as "he was wearing a mask". The mask did not cause extra harm or anything, it's just a piece of fabric that isn't politically charged (in before someone post a triple K hat).

"

faerwin wrote:

The mask did not cause extra harm or anything, it's just a piece of fabric that isn't politically charged (in before someone post a triple K hat).

We've had exactly this type of legislation to deal with the Klan before. Albeit on a state level, not federal.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

wearing a mask does not mean you are gonna commit a crime, what kind of ridiculous thinking is that?? It just means you want to not be recognized. Now, if you plan to commit a crime, you will most likely want to veil yourself to not be easily recognizable but the act of being veiled does not mean you intent to commit a crime.

As such, being masked shouldn't in any circumstance be considered as a proof of intention.

HR 6054 would not make it illegal to wear a mask generally, nor does it declare intent for people who wear masks. It would make it illegal to wear a mask WHILE committing certain crimes.

I might argue that wearing a mask whilst committing a crime isn't really that big a deal. Kinda like legislating that wearing underwear is also a crime, whilst committing a crime...

Here in Australia there are simple signs that ask people to remove helmets etc when entering banks and the like or no service is provided. Now if you try and rob the place then you got bigger problems.

Cheers,
Matt.