TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#172051: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:35:04 PM

So, um, some rioting went down at UC Berkley, being blamed on protestors against Milo Yiannopoulos speaking there.
And in doing so, they give him exactly what he wanted.

Of course, he was always going to get what he wanted.

Don't let him speak? Cry about oppression. Let him speak? Flaunt hate speech. Peacefully protest? Cucks. Fight back? Savages.

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#172052: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:35:29 PM

The middle class is functionally in an abusive relationship with plutocrats, who lie to them and cheat them and they believe every word of it and always blame someone else instead and make excuses for them.

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#172053: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:42:23 PM

[up][up][up] Technically, the only speech I know for a fact that is illegal in the USA is: Libel/Slander, Speech that causes false panic (IE, Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater), and Speech that calls for violence against specific individuals. Everything else is legally protected under the First Amendment, including Hate Speech.

And again, even though I don't like it, I think it's absolutely necessary that it be legal because then we can point to it and explain why it's bad.

Lanceleoghauni Cyborg Helmsman from Z or R Twice Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: In my bunk
#172054: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:44:59 PM

didn't stop the donald from suggesting that "you second amendment people" would be able to "do something" about hillary clinton and not only get away with it, but still be eligible for election.

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#172055: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:45:52 PM

The Nation: Leaked Draft of Trump's "Religious Freedom" executive order.

    Article 
 A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as “sweeping” and “staggering,” may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“This executive order would appear to require agencies to provide extensive exemptions from a staggering number of federal laws—without regard to whether such laws substantially burden religious exercise,” said Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on church-state separation and religious freedom.

The exemptions, Lederman said, could themselves violate federal law or license individuals and private parties to violate federal law. “Moreover,” he added, “the exemptions would raise serious First Amendment questions, as well, because they would go far beyond what the Supreme Court has identified as the limits of permissive religious accommodations.” It would be “astonishing,” he said, “if the Office of Legal Counsel certifies the legality of this blunderbuss order.”

The leaked draft maintains that, as a matter of policy, “Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their conscience.”

It sets forth an exceptionally expansive definition of “religious exercise” that extends to “any act or refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” “It’s very sweeping,” said Ira Lupu, a professor emeritus at the George Washington University Law School and an expert on the Constitution’s religion clauses and on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). “It raises a big question about whether the Constitution or the RFRA authorizes the president to grant religious freedom in such a broad way.”

In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.

Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings.

Jenny Pizer, senior counsel and law and policy director for Lambda Legal, said some of the language in the draft order is similar to language in a law passed last year in Mississippi, which a federal district court ruled violated both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. (The case is now on appeal.) Pizer said the draft order would appear to violate the Establishment Clause by listing a “particular set of religious beliefs and giving special government protection to people who hold those beliefs as opposed to different beliefs.”

Section 4 of the order, “Specific Agency Responsibilities,” requires HHS to issue a rule exempting any person or organization with religious objections from complying with the ACA’s preventive-care mandate—42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4)—which includes contraceptive coverage. It requires HHS to ensure that anyone purchasing insurance on a health-care exchange have the option of purchasing a plan that neither covers abortions nor “subsidize[s] plans that do provide such coverage.”

And it bars HHS from taking any adverse action against federally funded child-welfare organizations, including those offering adoption, foster, or family support services, that deny anyone these services “due to a conflict with the organization’s religious beliefs.”

Pizer said this language constitutes “a license to discriminate with public money in a series of contexts in which people tend to be vulnerable,” such as against LGBT children in foster care, which is federally funded. More broadly, she said, it would permit organizations receiving federal grants or contracts to provide child welfare services not only to refuse necessary care but to refuse even to “refer the child to another agency or setting that would be protective and affirming and instead place the child in an environment that is aggressively hostile to who that child is, on religious grounds.” Even during the George W. Bush administration, she noted, “there were protections in executive orders that beneficiaries of grantees and contractors were not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Section 4 also requires the Department of Justice to establish a new section or working group dedicated to protecting “religious freedom.”

On Tuesday, the White House announced that it would continue President Obama’s executive order protecting federal contractors from anti-LGBT discrimination. Yet the new draft order codifies a laundry list of claims advanced by the Christian right in recent years as indicating that the advance of LGBT rights has put the religious freedom of conservative Christians at risk. “They would say this is a nondiscrimination order,” said Lambda Legal’s Pizer. “We disagree. We would say being denied the ability to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.”

    The Order 
 Executive Order—Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious freedom of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution, applicable statutes, and other legal authorities, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Policy. The United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental natural right to religious liberty. This Constitutional protection ensures that Americans and their religious organizations will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their consciences, and will remain free to express their viewpoints without suffering adverse treatment from the Federal Government. It shall be the policy of this Administration to protect religious freedom.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Person” shall have the same definition as “person” in 1 U.S.C. 1.

(b) “Religious exercise” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, and includes any act or any refusal to act that is motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the act is required or compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

(c) “Religious organization” shall be construed broadly to encompass any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious, and is not limited to houses of worship or tax-exempt organizations, or organizations controlled by or associated with a house of worship or a convention or association of churches.

Sec. 3 Religious Freedom Principles and Policymaking Criteria. All executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, adhere to the following principles and criteria when formulating and implementing regulations, actions, or policies:

(a) Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.

(b) Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.

(c) As required by religious freedom laws such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”) and the religious provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 20003 et seq., agencies shall faithfully discharge their duty to accommodate the religion of federal employees and shall not promulgate regulations, take actions, or enact policies that substantially burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious exercise unless the imposition represents the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Regulations, actions, or policies shall not be deemed “compelling” simply by virtue of their having been applied neutrally, broadly, or across the Federal Government.

Sec. 4. Specific agency Responsibilities to Avoid Potential Violation of Religious Freedom

(a) The Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury shall immediately issue an interim final rule that exempts from the preventative-care mandate set forth in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4) all persons and religious organizations that object to complying with the mandate for religious or moral reasons.

(b) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate actions, through mechanisms to ensure compliance with existing statutory and other protections, if necessary, to ensure that any individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market (whether through a federally facilitated exchange, a state-sponsored health insurance exchange, or otherwise) has the ability to purchase health insurance that does not provide coverage for abortion and does not subsidize plans that do provide such coverage.

(c) The Secretary of Health and human Services shall take all appropriate actions to ensure that the Federal Government shall not discriminate or take any adverse action against a religious organization that provides federally-funded child-welfare services, including promoting or providing adoption, foster, or family support services for children, or similar services, on the basis that the organization declines to provide , facilitate, or refer such services due to a conflict with the organization’s religious beliefs. The Secretary of Health and human Services shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(d) All agencies shall, with respect to any person, house of worship, or religious organization that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative agreement, provide protections and exceptions consistent with sections 702(a) and 703(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 20003-I(a) and 2000e-2(e)) and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113(d)). The Secretary of Labor shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(e) The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure that the Department of the Treasury shall not impose any tax or tax penalty, delay or deny tax-exempt status, or disallow tax deductions for contributions made under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), or otherwise make unavailable or deny any tax benefits to any person, church, synagogue, house of worship or other religious organization.

(1) on the basis of such person or organization speaking on moral or political issues from a religious perspective where religious speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as an intervention in a political campaign by the Department of the Treasury, or

(2) on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.

The Secretary of the Treasure and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, where authorized by law, promptly propose for notice and comment new regulations consistent with this policy.

(b) No agency shall, to the extent allowed by law, not recognize any decisions or findings made by any federally-recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to, or otherwise disadvantages, a religious organization on the basis that such organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with a belief described in section 4(e)(2) of this order.

(g) No agency shall exclude or otherwise make unavailable or deny any person or religious organization admission or access to charitable fundraising campaigns on the basis that such person or organization believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the beliefs described in Section 4(e)(2) of this order.

(k) No agency shall take adverse action against any person or religious organization that is a Federal employee, contractor, or grantee on the basis of their speaking or acting in accordance with the beliefs described in section 4(e)(2) of this order while outside the scope of their employment, contract, or grant, and shall reasonably accommodate such speech and action when made within the course of their employment, contract, or grant. This provision shall not be construed to diminish or otherwise limit any other protection provided by this order.

(l) The Attorney General shall establish with the Department of Justice a Section or working group that will ensure that the religious freedom of persons and religious organizations is protected throughout the United States, and shall investigate and, if necessary, take or coordinate appropriate action under applicable religious freedom laws.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) All agencies shall promptly withdraw or rescind any rulings, directives, regulations, guidance, positions, or interpretations that are inconsistent with this order to the extent of their inconsistency.

(b) The provisions of this order shall prevail in cases of conflict with any existing executive order and with any future executive order unless such future order explicitly refers to, and limited or excludes, the application of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof, or ii) the functions of the OMB Director relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) This order shall be carried out subject to the availability of appropriations and to the extent permitted by law.

(e) This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies or instrumentalities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Lennik (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#172056: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:47:47 PM

Trump sends US troops into a raid in Yemen without sufficient intelligence, resulting in civilian and American casualties.

U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.

That's right, boys. Mondo cool.
Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#172057: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:52:44 PM

Yet the new draft order codifies a laundry list of claims advanced by the Christian right in recent years as indicating that the advance of LGBT rights has put the religious freedom of conservative Christians at risk.

The intellectual dishonesty of these people is just infuriating to me.

Just say "I hate the gays and I don't want anything to do with them, and if that makes me a bigot then so be it" and be done with it already.

CenturyEye Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign? from I don't know where the Yith sent me this time... Since: Jan, 2017 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Tell Me, Have You Seen the Yellow Sign?
#172058: Feb 1st 2017 at 8:58:35 PM

And again, even though I don't like it, I think it's absolutely necessary that it be legal because then we can point to it and explain why it's bad.
I'll be the first to say, I like your reasoning better in theory. The society should cultivate a free exchange of ideas, where the best are supported and the worst refuted and discarded. But that only barely happens even in science due to rigorous procedures and doesn't happen at all in the public space any longer.
Commenters have known since How to Win Friends and Influence People came out in the early 20th century that losing an argument only entrenches the losers' own opinions. Updated: Why People "Fly from Facts It may be the environment, (the Athenians seemed to vote on things unanimously in ekklesia and early Americans read detailed papers and debated in pubs), but the debate and defeat other arguments thing doesn't happen in contemporary times—at least at a noticeable rate.
I'd rather that not be the end of it, but I need someone else to lay out how to actually reach free exchange of ideas. The unlimited speech is only halfway and, as shown, easy to turn against society.

edited 1st Feb '17 8:59:59 PM by CenturyEye

Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Pseudopartition Screaming Into The Void from The Cretaeceous Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
Screaming Into The Void
#172059: Feb 1st 2017 at 9:11:21 PM

From that article:

Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as “sweeping” and “staggering,” may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“This executive order would appear to require agencies to provide extensive exemptions from a staggering number of federal laws—without regard to whether such laws substantially burden religious exercise,” said Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on church-state separation and religious freedom.

I'm not surprised, just disgusted. This a deliberate attempt to take America back to the 1950s.

One last thing from the draft itself:

Religious freedom is not confined to religious organizations or limited to religious exercise that takes place in houses of worship or the home. It is guaranteed to persons of all faiths and extends to all activities of life.
I think it is safe to say that no one actually believes that they intend this bill to apply to other faiths. This bill is intended for evangelical Christians alone.

edited 1st Feb '17 9:11:55 PM by Pseudopartition

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#172060: Feb 1st 2017 at 9:16:35 PM

So which EO do you think will take precedent in the Trump Administration? The one signed by Obama that protects LGBT individuals from discrimination in the Workplace, or the one he signs that allows individuals to discriminate against LGBT's because of "Religion"?

This is essentially a soft repeal of the Protection EO. At least "Secular" Companies and Organizations will still have to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination, but it essentially allows any Business or Group that claims to belong to "Religion X, Y, Z" to discriminate against them. It's sickening, and I'm a Catholic.

But there is one silver lining to this: The harder Trump tries to give strength to Evangelicals, the more likely that the 'Rebellious Youth', who will make up the Future of our nation, will be more Liberal and less Religious then these Generations are, all because of short sighted people like Trump that try to force things on them.

LinkToTheFuture A real bad hombre from somewhere completely different Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
A real bad hombre
#172061: Feb 1st 2017 at 9:22:16 PM

Say, when did climate change begin to be regularly taught in schools?

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#172062: Feb 1st 2017 at 9:47:11 PM

I think it's absolutely necessary that it be legal because then we can point to it and explain why it's bad.

You can point to it and explain why it's bad, without keeping it legal. We don't have to legalize murder, rape or theft in order to explain why their bad.

Luigisan98 A wandering user from Venezuelan Muscat Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
A wandering user
#172063: Feb 1st 2017 at 9:57:23 PM

Why am I getting the feeling that the threads in TV Tropes is where the sane ones are when discussing topics instead of other websites?

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.
ViperMagnum357 Since: Mar, 2012
#172064: Feb 1st 2017 at 10:04:20 PM

[up]The mods are quick to ban trolls and clamp down on personal exchanges before they spiral. Truly amazing how few sites bother to even try.

Luigisan98 A wandering user from Venezuelan Muscat Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
A wandering user
#172065: Feb 1st 2017 at 10:18:22 PM

Just like Starwarsnews...

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.
LinkToTheFuture A real bad hombre from somewhere completely different Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
A real bad hombre
#172066: Feb 1st 2017 at 10:38:05 PM

Does Trump realize that Frederick Douglass is long dead?

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison
MadSkillz Destroyer of Worlds Since: Mar, 2013 Relationship Status: I only want you gone
Destroyer of Worlds
#172067: Feb 1st 2017 at 10:41:43 PM

I don't think Trump knows who that is

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#172068: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:12:33 PM

TV Tropes has a great balance in allowing you to actually discuss topics, but also acting when a discussion is about to spiral out of control without threating the tropers immediately like trolls just because the emotions got the better of them. Never got that in another forum.

So...someone told me yesterday that he expects Trump to simply get shot sooner or later. Considering the attack rate on Presidents and the heated mood in the US this is actually very likely, security or not, you only need one determined crazy with enough luck. I wonder though if that would actually be a good thing...can you imaging what Pence would do in this situation? How he would capitalize on such an "attack on the US democracy"?

HextarVigar That guy from The Big House Since: Feb, 2015
That guy
#172069: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:16:07 PM

And then, given the mess he's made of things, consider that they might allow him to be shot.

Tragically, of course.

Your momma's so dumb she thinks oral sex means talking dirty.
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#172070: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:17:58 PM

He'd definitely capitalize the hell out of it. It'd be super easy to make Trump into a martyr, but between the 'he'll carry on what Trump started' on the right and the left 'at least he's not Trump' on the left, he'll somehow get popular.

In the short term. I don't see him managing to be quite enough of a successful demagogue to keep that going forever. Don't think I can predict what would happen in the long term, beyond Trump getting painted more sympathetically than he deserves by history.

Really, if you're to assassinate somebody, Bannon makes more sense than Trump.

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#172071: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:25:54 PM

DHS Secretary claims the border wall will be finished in two years.

Warning: Fox News link.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Luigisan98 A wandering user from Venezuelan Muscat Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
A wandering user
#172072: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:31:26 PM

[up] That is unless someone doesn't sabotage it.

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.
Gilphon (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#172073: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:33:49 PM

Or unless it's not a fundamentally insane project that's unlikely to get off the ground.

fruitpork Since: Oct, 2010
#172074: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:36:55 PM

I'm gonna say that there's a high chance tons of people will refuse to let the order wall be built near their property. So it's gonna be only in select places.

Luigisan98 A wandering user from Venezuelan Muscat Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: I <3 love!
A wandering user
#172075: Feb 1st 2017 at 11:45:29 PM

[up] Indeed.

The only good fanboy, is a redeemed fanboy.

Total posts: 417,856
Top