I`m not even mad, that`s amazing

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

politicallolcenter Rank: #83

Channel: politics

next random

Comment

I`m not even mad, that`s amazing. In short, President's Administration suggested to lift the ban, everyone flips . Later Trump denies to lift the ban. Everyone

In short, President's Administration suggested to lift the ban, everyone flips .
Later Trump denies to lift the ban. Everyone still flips .

Tags: politics | trump | News | libtards

+634

Views: 14615 Submitted: 11/22/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Sounds like child abuse

3572

Top ----ing KeK

3121

Cards Against Common Sense

lively nippy horrible Lapwing

2489

Sexual harassment

2440

Pisug Ytuctof Tochimugl

2428

Meanwhile in South Africa...

2408

Sambyoch Edinilt Umercalyod

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (57)

First 2 Last

[ 57 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#3 - weebtrash#111 on commentsRank#111

Reply+79

(11/22/2017)[-]

Well, someone in the administration ****** up if they thought lifting the ban was gonna fly.

But Trump clearly isn't for it so why be mad at him? At worst, he was responsible for hiring whoever wanted to lift it and has since settled the issue.

#10 to #3 - wisdomspider#280 on commentsRank#280

Reply+19

(11/22/2017)[-]

The current ban on trophy hunting is only about certain countries who don't have their wildlife administration in order. There are plenty of places where you can pay to shoot an elephant legally in Africa.
You have to pay money that gets used in wildlife care if you want to shoot something. It's illegal for anyone to kill them otherwise. They were looking into this ban to see if it had to be renewed or not for those countries. If those countries get their **** together, the ban is lifted since those were the rules the ban was made under.

An actual full on ban for trophy hunting would be something very different from the current ban.

#8 to #3 - ponytarado#385 on commentsRank#385

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

#9 to #8 - iwillrulenorway#196 on commentsRank#196

Reply+2

(11/22/2017)[-]

Oh, what's that, an image of not trump doing something trump is against?

#11 to #9 - ponytarado#385 on commentsRank#385

Reply-1

(11/22/2017)[-]

It's a Trump.
The Prince Donald Trump Jr.

#13 to #11 - iwillrulenorway#196 on commentsRank#196

Reply+17

(11/22/2017)[-]

A Trump, not THE Trump.

People are not obligated to have the same opinions as their children

#17 to #13 - anon id: 35812fff

Reply-8

(11/22/2017)[-]

Wel, he raised him.

#20 to #17 - iwillrulenorway#196 on commentsRank#196

Reply+26

(11/22/2017)[-]

You're right, when criminals are convicted their parents of guardians should be put in jail too.

#49 to #20 - uglychino

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Yeah, and the little ***** end up being worse.

#25 to #17 - jantsi

Reply+9

(11/22/2017)[-]

And germany raised hitler

#27 to #25 - parman

Reply+5

(11/22/2017)[-]

Or Austria?

#28 to #17 - ohhh

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Youre retarded and you hate for hates sake.

#33 to #11 - kalaark

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Ahahaha, whoever made that image is a salty ************.

#14 - cthulhudreams#58 on commentsRank#58

Reply+14

(11/22/2017)[-]

#29 - scootabot

Reply+7

(11/22/2017)[-]

It's called cognitive dissonance.

Where even if Trump managed to save someone from a foreign prison, he'd still be seen as Hitler, because they hate him and no matter what he does right, he'll never -be- right.

#26 - joexdtry

Reply+6

(11/22/2017)[-]

Honestly americas ban on elephant trophies is ridiculously strict.
Just like the Cuba ****.
Over here we are super strict when it comes to poaching but there are legit services that let you shoot elephants and other large game and give you a certificate to prove that it's legal.
In a similar manner Cuban cigars here have import certificates proving that the cigars where bought legitimately and wheren't smuggled.
Only in america something like that isn't strict enough despite the ton of enforcement methods.
I mean don't get me wrong we need to go against poaching as hard as possible but the ban on trophies has had those elephant reserves who pay for the safety of their animals by having some of them hunted in a bad spot.
I've shot an elephant myself (birthday gift from my hunter grandpa, he wanted to give me an unforgettable experience) and it took hours with the customs and all the legitimacy checks to make sure nothing was faked.
In the end the price a single kill costs is enough to keep 5 elephants alive for an entire lifetime so the money is well spent.

Either way that's just my 2 cents. I'll go and smoke a cuban while watching the comment *********. Cheers.

#31 to #26 - distortedflare#199 on commentsRank#199

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

Given hunting barely scratches 2% of the income towards conservation. And given how often corruption prevents that money from helping the animal. What is the point? I say ban all trophy hunting. The money it brings in is not really worth it.

That and the money from one killed elephant honesty doesn't make a difference. All it does is ***** up the species. Older elephants pass on knowledge to the younger ones. Teaching them to avoid humans. Disciplining them if they get too aggressive. Etc. These animals can live for up to 100 years.

Imagine reaching 90. Only for some arsehole to come out with 10 people and blow your brains out from the safety of a truck 300 yards away. Seems pretty ******.

That and the limit on how many elephants can be shot is constantly being ignored. Someone pays enough money and they will provide an elephant of any age regardless of regulation. And all this does is increases the appeal for ivory/ trophies. With trophies being banned. it pushes the appeal down which is good. That and having Trophies increases poaching as others who may not want to hunt but want tusks, skin etc. Will pay poachers to kill. And very quickly we could see poaching spiral out of control.

#32 to #31 - joexdtry

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

Well You do make some valid points however the 2% one is ********.
Jews make up less than 2% of germans. Let's gas them. Why not?
And I get that conservation is a different thing with a species however some countries get all their elephant reserve money from hunting while others don't practice it at all.
You're saying it's okay to let all elephants in certain areas which we humans ****** up go extinct because they are so few which is what I suggested we do with the jews.
Also the rules where pretty strict on which elephants we could shoot so I'm quite certain that they take age or at least value to the species into account.
As for the limit being ignored this depends on the organization we're talking about and I will admit that this always has its flaws.
However do you really think someone wealthy enough to pay for elephant trophies can't afford to have them smuggled in?
On that basis alone I'd say your argument is flawed because of the exclusivity making the potential price on elephant trophies even higher.

#37 to #32 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply+3

(11/22/2017)[-]

>Can't hunt elephants anymore, better gas all the Jews

Come on Germany, we've been over this.

#38 to #37 - joexdtry

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

My point was kind of how letting part of a countries fauna go extinct because in comparison to the global amount of them it isn't significant isn't a valid argument.

And maybe I just kind of want to build some showers, just a little.

On a serious note though, go to a jewish neighbourhood in germany, or even better a jewish slaughter and see how well integrated they are into the country.
They are literally above the law here in germany.
They pay no taxes on things everyone else has to pay taxes on apparently all jewish food is religious but only jewish food and abuse animals for their religion while the law will put a hunter in jail if they finish a boar with a knife instead of a gun to save some of the meat.
I don't hate jews for who they are and this is not about racism but the religion has no right to exist especially not above the law.

#39 to #38 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Click to show spoiler

I'm sure you know more about it than I do IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN

#40 to #39 - joexdtry

Reply+2

(11/22/2017)[-]

This is mostly about me being sick and tired about people being above the law by playing the guilt card.
Especially because every single jew I met so far acted like it's completely justified.
In a jewish neighbourhood people who aren't jewish get told to leave for just walking through and my tax money is paying for kosher products which essentially break animal protection laws.
Since saying anything against jews is anti-Semitism I'm slowly turning into a nazi but honestly at this point I don't even bother since things are getting out of hand to the point where writing an essay against how Israel treated holocaust survivors can result in people being expelled from school.

#34 to #32 - distortedflare#199 on commentsRank#199

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Jesus man not even one comment in and we are all ready on Jews/ Nazi Germany.

And I disagree if trophies are banned in a country. why go out and shoot an animal if you can't bring it home. hell trophy hunting in Britain has dropped significantly since the 90's and even early 2000's

Once again trophy hunting does not contribute enough money to be worth shooting the animals.

Elephants as of 2016 had around 300 thousand left in the wild. Around 650 elephants are killed via hunters every year. And Elephants have a pregnancy of 22 months. That and given how long it takes elephants to reach sexual maturity. We are losing elephants faster than the species can reproduce. And with poaching a constant threat we are in serious danger of losing critically endangered animals.

And hell when you have China banning Ivory trade you know the trade is dying. The demand for ivory is dying. And trophy hunters that shoot endangered animals are mostly pathetic little tools desperate to feel validated.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/...

#35 to #34 - joexdtry

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

There are more killed by hunters compared to birth rate.
However first of all the guardian is hardly a valid source, after all the **** they've written being debunked by video evidence weeks later.
Second of all those hunting statistics usually include all organizations not just the valid ones, something that German law does differentiate in.
Third of all if elephants wouldn't be hunted at all they'd hunt for humans instead (not to eat but because they are territorial) so either elephant trophies will go to waste or people will die.
Especially since elephants, despite being semi-endangered, can go out of control too.
Elephants will always be shot.
Whether it be by poachers or by a farmer protecting their land.
Might as well do it for a good purpose.
You however seem to argue that small flaws in the system devalue the entire system which is one of the most common strawmen used in debating.

As for the Nazi argument, isn't it somewhat hypocrite to argue for the protection of animals and protect those who torture them to death for religious reasons?
Also this is funnyjunk no **** that the nazis will be mentioned.
Lastly I mostly used it because both jews and elephants vary from region to region and letting them go extinct in one place will result in a chain reaction despite there being plenty of elephants elsewhere/plenty of jews in Israel and because both should be hunted for sports.

#42 - whitestarseven

Reply+4

(11/22/2017)[-]

Still not as bad as Levar Ball complaining after President Trump saved his kid from a Chinese prison.

#36 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply+4

(11/22/2017)[-]

>Trump reverses a ban for unknown reasons
>Everyone is quite reasonably annoyed about this
>Trump reverses his decision and starts calling the thing he just approved barbaric leaving everyone wondering what the hell he's is doing
>FJ: The Liberal Media is suffering from cognitive dissonance and looking for any reason to criticise Trump

#41 to #36 - whitestarseven

Reply+4

(11/22/2017)[-]

I think people would like to see liberals react to President Trump's decision to keep something they like with relief and appreciation for seeing things their way. By complaining about the President both ways, they make compromising with them pointless.

#43 to #41 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply-2

(11/22/2017)[-]

Reasonable people can disagree about policy but changing his position so dramatically in such a short time indicates he either did it without thinking or is extremely vulnerable to mob rule. Neither is a good trait in a leader. While I'm glad the ban remains in place, you've got to admit that it makes Trump look very bad.

#44 to #43 - whitestarseven

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

I don't think so. Every day my news feed is filled with speculation about what President Trump is going to do in this issue or that. I usually ignore it until the administration actually makes a decision. Now, each time this happens, I see three possibilities:

1. The sources are bad, but the stories prompt President Trump to provide his position so as to correct the bad information.

2. President Trump deliberately leaks this stuff to see how people feel regarding an issue about which he is ambivalent, and then he does what America appears to want him to do.

3. President Trump uses his business negotiating skills when talking to politicians who come to talk to him about various issues, and his style causes them to think he's on their side and understands their concerns. These people then say President Trump has made a deal with them or his beliefs on the issue are evolving or something like that because business negotiation tactics don't always translate well in political discussions.

I suspect this is a situation 2 but that most of these instances are situation 3s.

#45 to #44 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply-2

(11/22/2017)[-]

You don't even consider the possibility that Trump is in the wrong, just that he's being misrepresented?

#46 to #45 - whitestarseven

Reply+3

(11/22/2017)[-]

President Trump is never wrong. Sometimes reality and President Trump are in conflict, but reality later corrects itself.

#47 to #46 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

#54 to #43 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply0

(11/23/2017)[-]

Wow, faffernoose is the kind of guy who calls people emotional rabid scumbags, thumbs them down and blocks them. Since I know from the "is typing" you're still foaming at the mouth in this thread, here's what I was going to say:

Funny how you call me emotional and then throw a hissy fit about some stuff I didn't say and act like a child when confronted with the unavoidable truth that your golden boy screwed up in a way that you can't blame on the Fake News™. You ignore the fact that overseeing changes to policy made by any member of his administration is his job and instead go on a tirade about how you're more worried about foreigners.

Since we're on the subject though, what exactly has Trump done to deal with the deep state or Iran in the past three days that's worth him neglecting his duty as executive? Or since he took office for that matter?

The only thing that's insulting to your intelligence is your strange hero worship.

#50 to #36 - faffernoose

Reply+2

(11/23/2017)[-]

It was the Interior Secretary that reversed it ******* mongoloid.

That lasted about 3 days till Trump got wind of it, and ended it.

This is exactly how it should be handled.

Ignorance and emotion dont warp reality anywhere but your own mind.

#52 to #50 - thegamegestapo#323 on commentsRank#323

Reply-3

(11/23/2017)[-]

Follow the logic through to its conclusion, either Trump approved of the IntSec's decision, in which case the criticism stands or he didn't know; making him out of control of his administration and weak if he doesn't fire the person who acted against his administration's interests.

There is no way Trump looks good here. He messed up whatever way you look at it.

#53 to #52 - faffernoose

Reply+1

(11/23/2017)[-]

It is asinine to expect or want him to be following minutia like this.
You rabid scumbags **** him at every turn, no logic there.

Trump has 24 hours in a day. Its insulting to my own intelligence to list the current issues foreign and domestic that are vastly more important than micromanaging unimportant decisions like this.

You care about taking shots at Trump at every opportunity.

I care about Trump working on China, NK, Iran, fighting back obama/bush/clinton politicians and deep state.

3 days. Nothing bad happened. A relatively unimportant official made a decision that was bad PR but not anywhere near top 10 most important issues any POTUS should be following day to day. You people are so insane its unreal.

Think before you speak.

#16 - anon id: 35812fff

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

A politician backpeddles on a clearly terrible idea and you think people should praise him for it? What?

#21 to #16 - middlemunson

Reply+4

(11/22/2017)[-]

Trump admin? Not Trump?

Also, never said he deserves praises is just if he sees an idea as ******, and he go back on it, he will still get **** for it.

#15 - fvss

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Just ask, most people here in FJ are pro-Trump, right?

#23 to #15 - camslayer

Reply+4

(11/22/2017)[-]

Not really, we just like memes

#18 to #15 - yaboicarl

Reply+3

(11/22/2017)[-]

Yeah b, but a lot are just moderates that like the names😁

#19 to #15 - yaboicarl

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Memes ******* autocorrect

#12 - anon id: 8fcaeb0f

Reply-3

(11/22/2017)[-]

Why is this different from EA reversing their decision?

#22 to #12 - spartantoaster#208 on commentsRank#208

Reply+2

(11/22/2017)[-]

Because trump listen to the people and changed the decision while EA only changed because they listened to disney

#2 - garlicbutts#223 on contentRank#223

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

All I know about American presidency in regards to elephants was that Theodore Roosevelt went to shoot them in Africa. Or was it lions?

#4 to #2 - anon id: f9e69d57

Reply+2

(11/22/2017)[-]

Roosevelt went on his safari after he left office.

Elephants are also the mascot of the Republican Party.

#5 to #4 - garlicbutts#223 on contentRank#223

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

Oh yea then he left another guy in charge. I think he lost right?

#6 to #5 - anon id: 8b2435fc

Reply+1

(11/22/2017)[-]

Yep, William Taft. Of course, he ****** things up so badly that Teddy ran again under a third party with no intent of winning, just taking enough votes to get him to lose.

He ended up coming in second place in the election, with Woodrow Wilson winning. This is the only time in history one of the two major parties came in with less votes than a third party.

#7 to #6 - garlicbutts#223 on contentRank#223

Reply0

(11/22/2017)[-]

I heard Taft was in tears after that. Said something along the lines of "I don't see how I could have done things differently than I could have."

First 2 Last

[ 57 comments ]

Add Comment