WizardofOz
New member
I had a thread that was closed here, which was intended to highlight the highlights and shed light on the lowlights of the current president, Donald Trump. I was personally trying to be objective as possible. I had made posts about aspects I like as I made posts of aspect I did not like regarding his policies.
Please don't post here just to bash Trump. Alternatively, do not post simply to praise Trump. All presidents are flawed as people and as leaders but none are completely bad either.
I wanted to open another thread as while there are certainly areas where criticism is due. There have been two recent developments that I am personally in favor of.
First: H.R.5682 - FIRST STEP Act will give many people who are imprisoned for non-violent crime (drug offenses, etc) a chance to either be released or to be integrated into a halfway house or other types of supervision.
I think this is a great 'first step' in the right direction.
Your thoughts?
Also, Trump orders rapid withdrawal from Syria in apparent reversal
Of course all of the neoconservative war hawks are up in arms:
I, for one, applaud the decision. Bring our troops home. While this move may give Iran and Russia greater influence in the region, who cares? Let Russia fight ISIS in Syria. We will maintain forces in the region capable of launching strikes if necessary.
I support both moves. :thumb:
Going forward, if you are going to participate in this thread, please discuss policies of the president. I am not interested in his personal life or moral character.
Thank you!
Please don't post here just to bash Trump. Alternatively, do not post simply to praise Trump. All presidents are flawed as people and as leaders but none are completely bad either.
I wanted to open another thread as while there are certainly areas where criticism is due. There have been two recent developments that I am personally in favor of.
First: H.R.5682 - FIRST STEP Act will give many people who are imprisoned for non-violent crime (drug offenses, etc) a chance to either be released or to be integrated into a halfway house or other types of supervision.
| The bill would help prisoners earn good-time credits so they could reduce their sentences for good behavior. It would offer them more training and work opportunities, as well as the chance to earn money that would go into escrow accounts to pay for post-release expenses. It would bolster programs to help prisoners reintegrate into society after release. It would ban shackling of pregnant women. The legislation would relax some mandatory-minimum sentences, mainly on drug charges, and give judges more discretion to sentence people to less than the mandatory amount of time if they are convicted of nonviolent drug crimes. It would also address the ongoing outrage that more than 2,000 people have languished behind bars because of an unjust disparity in sentencing rules between charges for crack and powder cocaine offenses, a distinction that disproportionately hit African Americans. In all, if the House approves the legislation, thousands of current inmates, and many more in the future, would get a fairer deal. Plenty of caveats apply. The bill does not go as far as we would like, or satisfy activists seeking more sweeping reform. It does not relax federal sentencing enough. The methods it prescribes to assess the threats that prisoners pose upon release and to widen judges’ sentencing discretion should be scrutinized for fairness and effectiveness as they are phased in. Moreover, the states are responsible for the vast majority of prisoners in the country. No matter what the federal government does, reducing the prison population will demand careful work in statehouses to curb useless incarceration without surrendering the gains in public safety seen in recent years. Still, this crime bill offers the country a direction — yes, a first step — that the House should approve and laggard states should follow. In both its specific changes and in its promise to spur reform below the federal level, it is clearly better than the status quo. Here |
I think this is a great 'first step' in the right direction.
Your thoughts?
Also, Trump orders rapid withdrawal from Syria in apparent reversal
Of course all of the neoconservative war hawks are up in arms:
| The President's decision flew in the face of policy statements by administration officials just days earlier and military statements about the threat of ISIS, highlighting the continuing dysfunction at the most senior levels of Trump's administration. Even though the US will continue to maintain troops in Iraq with the capability of launching strikes into Syria, many analysts said a withdrawal of ground forces will please US enemies by clearing the way in Syria for the Assad regime, Russia and Iran. A US departure could leave allies questioning Washington's commitment, reduce US awareness of dynamics on the ground and diminish Washington's influence in the region. It is "extraordinarily shortsighted and naive," said Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, who added that the decision will not only leave Iran hawks -- including lawmakers and Cabinet members such as national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- feeling "betrayed," but also plant the seeds for rebellion among Republican ranks. "This is a specifically Trumpian decision, and one that will be deeply unpopular within the vast majority of the GOP's foreign policy machine," Lister said. "Whether it takes hours or months, we will see some serious resistance coming out of this." The fallout for Iran policy will be significant, said Derek Chollet, a US assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration and now an executive vice president at the German Marshall Fund. "This drives a stake into the heart of the administration's Iran strategy." |
I, for one, applaud the decision. Bring our troops home. While this move may give Iran and Russia greater influence in the region, who cares? Let Russia fight ISIS in Syria. We will maintain forces in the region capable of launching strikes if necessary.
I support both moves. :thumb:
Going forward, if you are going to participate in this thread, please discuss policies of the president. I am not interested in his personal life or moral character.
Thank you!
