That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.

cheonc720 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.

Theft of personal property under US$10,000 is no longer a crime.

Survival of the fittest, as nature intended.

Expanded rights, therefore good.

	▲	mgkimsal 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Expanded rights for some at the direct expense of others. That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed.

skinfaxi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I asked if it was always bad. It seems you agree that it is not always bad.

koolba 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it.

Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment.

	▲	r2_pilot an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?