Trump proposals and what actually gets accomplished (4 Viewers)
- Thread starterMT15
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
TampaJoe
Well-known member
Offline
Nice in theory but if we don’t get control of crime in the streets and if we allow DA’s to ignore prosecuting current gun laws, passing new laws won’t do a damn thing.
This whole “defund the police” mantra did nothing to reform law enforcement. All the liberal DA’s refusing to prosecute or allowing habitual criminals back onto the streets to recommit does nothing to make people feel safe or lower the crime rate. All it does is make to process of regaining control of crime problem much more difficult.
I would readily support tougher more reasonable gun laws especially those that regulate who can legally posses a firearm in public. But I’m not going to die on that hill unless and until government gets serious about law enforcement.
- Moderator
- #128
Offline
The "defund the police" movement has been widely misrepresented and misunderstood. It wasn’t about abolishing the police but reallocating some funds to specialized social services. The idea is to equip communities with professionals better trained to handle specific situations—like unarmed individuals experiencing psychological crises.
Why send a 22-year-old street cop, trained primarily in enforcement, to deal with someone in the midst of a mental health episode? The officer isn’t equipped for that role, and as history has repeatedly shown, these encounters can tragically end in unnecessary violence or death.
For example, CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) in Eugene, Oregon, has been successfully addressing this issue for over 30 years. Instead of dispatching police, CAHOOTS sends trained mental health professionals and medics to respond to crises involving mental illness, homelessness, or substance abuse. In 2019 alone, CAHOOTS responded to 24,000 calls, and police backup was needed in less than 1% of cases.
Similarly, Denver’s STAR Program (Support Team Assisted Response) has shown promising results since its launch. It dispatches mental health professionals to nonviolent situations, like individuals experiencing mental health crises or public disturbances. During its first six months, STAR handled over 700 calls without a single arrest or escalation requiring police involvement.
Programs like these demonstrate that reallocating funds to specialized crisis teams can save lives, reduce unnecessary police encounters, and allow law enforcement to focus on their primary duties. It’s a practical, compassionate approach that benefits everyone.
Why send a 22-year-old street cop, trained primarily in enforcement, to deal with someone in the midst of a mental health episode? The officer isn’t equipped for that role, and as history has repeatedly shown, these encounters can tragically end in unnecessary violence or death.
For example, CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) in Eugene, Oregon, has been successfully addressing this issue for over 30 years. Instead of dispatching police, CAHOOTS sends trained mental health professionals and medics to respond to crises involving mental illness, homelessness, or substance abuse. In 2019 alone, CAHOOTS responded to 24,000 calls, and police backup was needed in less than 1% of cases.
Similarly, Denver’s STAR Program (Support Team Assisted Response) has shown promising results since its launch. It dispatches mental health professionals to nonviolent situations, like individuals experiencing mental health crises or public disturbances. During its first six months, STAR handled over 700 calls without a single arrest or escalation requiring police involvement.
Programs like these demonstrate that reallocating funds to specialized crisis teams can save lives, reduce unnecessary police encounters, and allow law enforcement to focus on their primary duties. It’s a practical, compassionate approach that benefits everyone.
- Banned
- #129
You don't know who I voted for, so why are you assuming?
Did you see me assume you want to ignore laws and support sanctuaries because you might be a Democrat?
Who did I vote for specifically that ruffled your feathers?
Did I assume you are pro-sanctuary and against enforcing immigration laws because you may be a Democrat? Nope, because then I would be stooping to your level.
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
Come on, man. You aren't fooling anyone.
Not in writing, no.
Really, you need to cut this shirt out. Have an argument like a thinking grown up. Those little digs don't do anything for you. You'll need a whole lot more than comments from some anonymous poster on a web forum for me to even feel a light breeze in my feathers.
There's an echo in here.
Again, you need to cut this shirt out. That crap doesn't get you brownie points here. Speaking reiterating, have an argument like a grown up. Counter the argument. It may be hard for you after decades of conditioning, but give it a try.
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
Very much so. It was a stupid slogan to begin with, even worse idea. If anything, I'd think changing overall police behavior would take more money used for proper training on how to properly handle those situations that seem to habitually get out of hand.
I don't remember this happening, though. I may be wrong, of course. I'll do some searching in the webz and re-educate myself.
Can't disagree.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
US colleges and universities are issuing warnings to their international students to return to campus before Donald Trump assumes office as president in preparation for a repeat of potential travel bans seen during his first term.
More than a dozen US schools have issued advisories. Some students must be back soon anyway since their spring semester begins before the president-elect takes office, but others are warning that students who depend on an academic visa may be at risk and should return to campus before Trump’s inauguration on 20 January.
Although Trump’s plans for any travel bans remain unclear, the president-elect has threatened to invoke a travel ban as he did via executive order during his first term, which affected those from predominantly Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
This included students and faculty of higher education institutions. More than 40,000 people were refused visas as a result of the ban, according to the US state department.
The list of schools includes Ivy League universities such as Harvard and Brown, Boston schools such as Northeastern University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other schools around the country, from Johns Hopkins University to the University of Southern California. Some offer classes that begin the day after inauguration day.
Cornell University told its students that a travel ban involving the 13 nations Trump previously targeted “is likely to go into effect soon after inauguration”, and that new countries could be added to the list, particularly China and India. It advised students, faculty and staff from those countries to return to campus before the semester starts on 21 January.
Cornell also warned these students to carry all relevant documents and ensure they are up to date, with a suggestion to also have on hand “evidence of funding and certificate of enrollment or transcript”.……..
www.theguardian.com
More than a dozen US schools have issued advisories. Some students must be back soon anyway since their spring semester begins before the president-elect takes office, but others are warning that students who depend on an academic visa may be at risk and should return to campus before Trump’s inauguration on 20 January.
Although Trump’s plans for any travel bans remain unclear, the president-elect has threatened to invoke a travel ban as he did via executive order during his first term, which affected those from predominantly Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
This included students and faculty of higher education institutions. More than 40,000 people were refused visas as a result of the ban, according to the US state department.
The list of schools includes Ivy League universities such as Harvard and Brown, Boston schools such as Northeastern University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other schools around the country, from Johns Hopkins University to the University of Southern California. Some offer classes that begin the day after inauguration day.
Cornell University told its students that a travel ban involving the 13 nations Trump previously targeted “is likely to go into effect soon after inauguration”, and that new countries could be added to the list, particularly China and India. It advised students, faculty and staff from those countries to return to campus before the semester starts on 21 January.
Cornell also warned these students to carry all relevant documents and ensure they are up to date, with a suggestion to also have on hand “evidence of funding and certificate of enrollment or transcript”.……..
US universities issue advisories over potential Trump travel ban
More than a dozen schools warn international students of visa threat, with some urging them to return to campus
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to retake the Panama Canal in a lengthy post on Truth Social.
Trump accused Panama of “ripping off” American vessels by charging “exorbitant prices” to use the vital waterway that acts as a shortcut linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Without it, ships would be forced to sail a much farther distance around South America’s rocky Cape Horn.
Trump was referring to the 1977 treaty over the canal’s status, which transferred control of the canal from the U.S. to Panama at the end of the 20th century.
It was hailed as one of President Jimmy Carter’s greatest accomplishments, but Trump slammed the 39th president for “foolishly giving it away for one dollar.”
“Our Navy and Commerce have been treated in a very unfair and injudicious way,” Trump vented. “The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S.”…..
www.independent.co.uk
Trump accused Panama of “ripping off” American vessels by charging “exorbitant prices” to use the vital waterway that acts as a shortcut linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Without it, ships would be forced to sail a much farther distance around South America’s rocky Cape Horn.
Trump was referring to the 1977 treaty over the canal’s status, which transferred control of the canal from the U.S. to Panama at the end of the 20th century.
It was hailed as one of President Jimmy Carter’s greatest accomplishments, but Trump slammed the 39th president for “foolishly giving it away for one dollar.”
“Our Navy and Commerce have been treated in a very unfair and injudicious way,” Trump vented. “The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S.”…..
Trump threatens to retake Panama Canal in Truth Social post
Trump accused Panama of charging American vessels ‘exorbitant prices’ to use the vital waterway
www.independent.co.uk- Thread starter
- #134
OP
OP
MT15
Well-known member
Offline
No, but wherever I get my news it’s far better than wherever you get yours, evidently.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
One of the biggest and most pressing questions in the aftermath of the 2024 election is just how much President-elect Donald Trump follows through on some of his more authoritarian-leaning proposals.
This is a man, after all, who talked about suspending parts of the Constitution, being a dictator for a day, criminalizing dissent and targeting his political enemies for retribution. Trump’s defenders often dismiss these comments as mere provocations, but only one man knows what’s in the president-elect’s heart. And there will surely be fewer obstacles in his second term if he does go down some undemocratic paths.
One of those diminished obstacles will be Trump’s own base.
For months, we’ve seen some remarkable findings when it comes to just how much the GOP base is willing to countenance or entertain authoritarianism. And we can now add another poll to the mix.
Monmouth University on Thursday released new data on a question it’s been asking for a while. The question notes that Trump has talked about suspending laws and constitutional provisions, and asked whether people would be bothered if he targeted his political enemies after doing so.
Trump’s allies are increasingly unbothered.
Just 23 percent of Republicans in the poll said they would be “bothered a lot” if Trump did this. That’s down from 41 percent in June and 25 percent in October. And it’s now less than the percentage who say they would not be bothered at all (36 percent).
(The remainder — about one-third of Republicans — say they would be bothered “a little.”)
The data also suggest that Trump-leaning independents have shifted significantly. Overall, the percentage of independents who say they would be bothered a lot if Trump targeted his enemies has dropped from 68 percent in June, to 60 percent in October, to 55 percent today.................
This is a man, after all, who talked about suspending parts of the Constitution, being a dictator for a day, criminalizing dissent and targeting his political enemies for retribution. Trump’s defenders often dismiss these comments as mere provocations, but only one man knows what’s in the president-elect’s heart. And there will surely be fewer obstacles in his second term if he does go down some undemocratic paths.
One of those diminished obstacles will be Trump’s own base.
For months, we’ve seen some remarkable findings when it comes to just how much the GOP base is willing to countenance or entertain authoritarianism. And we can now add another poll to the mix.
Monmouth University on Thursday released new data on a question it’s been asking for a while. The question notes that Trump has talked about suspending laws and constitutional provisions, and asked whether people would be bothered if he targeted his political enemies after doing so.
Trump’s allies are increasingly unbothered.
Just 23 percent of Republicans in the poll said they would be “bothered a lot” if Trump did this. That’s down from 41 percent in June and 25 percent in October. And it’s now less than the percentage who say they would not be bothered at all (36 percent).
(The remainder — about one-third of Republicans — say they would be bothered “a little.”)
The data also suggest that Trump-leaning independents have shifted significantly. Overall, the percentage of independents who say they would be bothered a lot if Trump targeted his enemies has dropped from 68 percent in June, to 60 percent in October, to 55 percent today.................
Many Republicans are okay with Trump ignoring the law to target enemies
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
NEW CASTLE, Pennsylvania — Lori Mosura goes to the grocery store on a bicycle because she can’t afford to fix her Ford F-150 truck.
The single mother and her 17-year-old son live in an apartment that is so small she sleeps in the dining room. They receive $1,200 each month in food stamps and Social Security benefits but still come up short. Mosura said she often must decide whether to buy milk or toilet paper.
It was all that penny-pinching that drove the part-time tax consultant to abandon the Democratic Party this fall and vote for Donald Trump.
“He is more attuned to the needs of everyone instead of just the rich,” Mosura, 55, said on a recent afternoon. “I think he knows it’s the poor people that got him elected, so I think Trump is going to do more to help us.”
Trump carried the Pennsylvania city of New Castle by about 400 votes, becoming the first Republican presidential candidate to win here in nearly 70 years. More than 1 in 4 residents live in poverty, and the median income in this former steel and railroad hub ranks as one of the lowest in Pennsylvania.
New Castle’s poorest residents weren’t alone in putting their faith in Trump. Network exit polls suggest he erased the advantage Democrats had with low-income voters across the country.
Fifty percent of voters from families with an income of less than $50,000 a year cast their ballots for Trump, according to the data, compared with 48 percent for Vice President Kamala Harris. Four years ago, President Joe Biden carried those voters by 11 percentage points; Hillary Clinton won them by 12 points in 2016 and former president Barack Obama by 22 points in 2012.
Now, low-income Americans who voted for Trump say they are counting on him to keep their benefits intact even while his Cabinet picks and Republican lawmakers call on him to reduce federal spending.
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy — whom Trump has chosen to lead a new nongovernmental advisory panel, the “Department of Government Efficiency” — have said they want to trim $2 trillion from the government’s annual budget, a cut that some experts say could be accomplished only by slashing entitlement programs.
Trump’s pick for White House budget director was a key architect of Project 2025, a plan drawn up by conservatives to guide his second term that calls for steep cuts to programs such as food stamps. And GOP leaders in Congress and Trump advisers are considering significant changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other federal aid...............
The single mother and her 17-year-old son live in an apartment that is so small she sleeps in the dining room. They receive $1,200 each month in food stamps and Social Security benefits but still come up short. Mosura said she often must decide whether to buy milk or toilet paper.
It was all that penny-pinching that drove the part-time tax consultant to abandon the Democratic Party this fall and vote for Donald Trump.
“He is more attuned to the needs of everyone instead of just the rich,” Mosura, 55, said on a recent afternoon. “I think he knows it’s the poor people that got him elected, so I think Trump is going to do more to help us.”
Trump carried the Pennsylvania city of New Castle by about 400 votes, becoming the first Republican presidential candidate to win here in nearly 70 years. More than 1 in 4 residents live in poverty, and the median income in this former steel and railroad hub ranks as one of the lowest in Pennsylvania.
New Castle’s poorest residents weren’t alone in putting their faith in Trump. Network exit polls suggest he erased the advantage Democrats had with low-income voters across the country.
Fifty percent of voters from families with an income of less than $50,000 a year cast their ballots for Trump, according to the data, compared with 48 percent for Vice President Kamala Harris. Four years ago, President Joe Biden carried those voters by 11 percentage points; Hillary Clinton won them by 12 points in 2016 and former president Barack Obama by 22 points in 2012.
Now, low-income Americans who voted for Trump say they are counting on him to keep their benefits intact even while his Cabinet picks and Republican lawmakers call on him to reduce federal spending.
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy — whom Trump has chosen to lead a new nongovernmental advisory panel, the “Department of Government Efficiency” — have said they want to trim $2 trillion from the government’s annual budget, a cut that some experts say could be accomplished only by slashing entitlement programs.
Trump’s pick for White House budget director was a key architect of Project 2025, a plan drawn up by conservatives to guide his second term that calls for steep cuts to programs such as food stamps. And GOP leaders in Congress and Trump advisers are considering significant changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other federal aid...............
After backing Trump, low-income voters hope he doesn’t slash their benefits
- Banned
- #138
I am surprised the article didn't include the classic line of "Those people don't know what they are doing, they are voting against their own interest".
brandon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,072
- Reaction score
- 5,344
Offline
You mean, the truth?
- Banned
- #140
I trust people know their own finances better than you do.
Why not just adjust that elitist attitude?
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Well the entire point of the article is “Vunerable Trump voters fearful Trump will do exactly what he said he would do”
“But, but the commercial said Trump was for us!”
- Banned
- #142
I guess being vulnerable Democratic voters wasn't panning out as they had hoped. Maybe they didn't receive Biden's message about inflation being merely temporary and should just suck it up.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Why is that an elitist attitude?
Again the whole article is direct quotes from people I assume are aware of their own financial situations who know they are up shirt creek if the man they voted for and elected follows through on what he campaigned on
- Banned
- #144
Gee, the fact that it needs explanation is astounding!
Why would you or anyone else know the finances of people they don't even know better than the people living it?
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.