It looks like this was an issue in George W. Bush’s presidency too and that ultimately F-16C/Ds were withheld then too. Overall, Obama has sold more arms to Taiwan than George W. Bush, which includes upgrades to Taiwan’s existing F-16A/Bs.
Are you saying rejecting the refugees, as the islamophobes want to do, wouldn’t include and harm women and children?
And you can always find ways to pretend that this time it’s different - this time we really should reject the refugees. I don’t buy it. It’s not that different, and it never is.
Well, look, its all your fault for not putting forth a better candidate! And now you are here, trying to blame the people who voted for Trump and the party that supported him!
The bigger potential for infrastructure is creating a division within the Republicans. The Democrats have long wanted increased infrastructure spending, so they will likely be on board, even if the costs are not off-set by reducing other federal spending elsewhere. The House Freedom Caucus and potentially a few other House Republicans may insist on spending off-sets before they give their approval, especially since the next debt ceiling raise is due in March 2017.
Regarding trade, Congressional Republicans have traditionally had a stronger free trade position than Democrats. As of last year, it looks like views were mixed among both parties.
Sales of red hats made in China.
I didn’t say this was an Obama issue (although you asked about Obama). I said I was hoping for greater transfer of arms under a Trump administration. Whether his predecessors were red or blue is irrelevant.
Shit, we always did! All those Central American and South American assholes with funny military hats and aviator sunglasses? All they had to do was declare that their enemies were Communist, and we sold them guns. We even loaned them the money to buy the guns, and then forgave the loans, and called it “foreign aid”.
Well, the “Hillary Presidency that could have been” will always be better than both the “Hillary Presidency we would have received” and “Whatever the fuck is happening now”.
examples
“Well, June, I don’t know. If Hillary had been elected, Paul Ryan wouldn’t be talking about taking Medicare away.”
“Dave, I’m worried. You told me Trump would stop the racist bullshit once in office. He is now suggesting a white nationalist for his top advisor. If Hillary had been elected, this wouldn’t have happened.”
“I don’t know. I don’t think Hillary would have let this escalate into nuclear war. Africa? What did we care about Africa before… this?”
“Talking points from political hacks?” The other poster’s implication was that women and children are at significant risk, which is exactly correct:
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war …
… The United Nations stated that by the end of April 2014, 8,803 children had been killed, while the Oxford Research Group said that a total of 11,420 children died in the conflict by late November 2013. By mid-September 2016, the opposition activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 15,099, while at the same time 10,018 women were also killed.
As for taking in only women and children, I don’t know exactly what the US policy is, though breaking up families would be unconscionable. What’s wrong with what Canada is doing? … Canada’s Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families. How is this a “tired talking point”?
No, it is not. Cuba is not at the center of a bloody civil war killing tens of thousands of innocents a year. This is a humanitarian crisis, and it really is a lot more like turning away Jewish refugees in a time of crisis.
Maybe, but is there any doubt that a Gore presidency would have been far better than the Bush-Cheney evil-twins disaster? And their really couldn’t possibly be any doubt that a drunken monkey would be better than the orange bigot who inexplicably won the electoral vote last week.
Thanks for the translation! I don’t think I would have figured that out in a million years.
Jews didn’t go around the globe blowing themselves up for Yahweh. There are a lot of Muslims blowing themselves up in the name of Allah all around the globe. Also, most people know that Muslims see themselves as part of the Ummah, hence why constitutions of supposedly “secular” Muslim majority states say that they’re part of the Islamic Nation.
Neither do the vast majority of Muslims, and the vast-vast-overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees (I’m not sure if there’s a single example of a Syrian refugee suicide bomber).
You have no idea how most Muslims see themselves, any more than KKK members and neo-Nazis have any idea how Jews or black people see themselves.
I don’t know about what advantages hunters in particular might find, but it’s pretty easy to see the advantages of short-barrel shotguns for home defense.
On the short-barrel rifle front, it seems silly to quite a few of us that this and this are both perfectly legal to go out and buy today, but this requires a federal tax stamp and months of delay to legally purchase.
How do you feel about white american people? You know, those millions of people just like Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. All of them blowing up stuff.
The first image is of a carbine with a 16-inch barrel, which is legal. The second image has a shorter barrel, but no buttstock, making it legally a pistol. The third image has the short barrel and the buttstock, making it restricted under NFA 1934.
Sure not the vast majority, but given how hard it is to sift thru who is gonna try to do it, do it, and not, and that of any group, Muslims are likely to produce the most terrorists, we should be careful. All the feel good PCness won’t amount to anything when people get limbs blown off or the last words they hear in life are “Allahu Akbar.” Not to mention the tax dollars the government has to spend to fight Islamic terror.
It’s pretty obvious, actually. Here’s another example:
there are not billions of dollars spent to fight people doing such things in the name of the white race, constant attempts, and increasingly frequent successful attacks.
Also, the existence of them does not mean we should ignore or avoid preventing radical Islamic attacks.
We’ll have far less Islamic terror if we make the vast majority of Muslims our friends and allies rather than our enemies. And I don’t know about you, but even if 1 in a million Jews are violent assholes (and the real number is probably a lot higher, since Jews are humans, and more than 1 in a million humans are probably violent assholes), it was still wrong to reject Jewish refugees.
In 50 years we’ll remember whether we accepted or rejected these refugees, just like we remember it now as far the Jews. In the long term, it’s always wrong to reject refugees fleeing for their lives, even if a few of them might be bad people.
Not surprisingly, this doesn’t support what you said before.
Considering US history, and the seriousness with which law enforcement treats white supremacist violence like Dylan Roof, I think you’re wrong once again here.
If you want to prevent Islamic terrorist attacks in the long term, then don’t lump in the vast majority of peaceful Muslims with the very few who are actively violent. We want those millions on our side, not feeling like their only chance at staying alive is to side with ISIS and other violent extremists.
You are absolutely correct. Thanks for that technical overview. Do you think it’s rational or reasonable that the third one is heavily restricted while the first two aren’t? I don’t. I want to see the NFA either repealed entirely or at least amended to exclude SBRs (and while we’re at it, SBSs and suppressors).