Trump Burns 500 Tons of Food Meant for the Hungry

Bradskii · Sunday at 7:13 PM

Hentenza said:
The problem with the left is that everything becomes a political drama. I would suggest that you look beyond the liberal media and rely on facts rather than emotional circular logic and fallacies.

As much as you'd like to class this as a political argument, it isn't. This is a moral matter.

People need help. People are starving. People need medical asaistance. And the Congress of one of the richest countries that has ever existed, by whichever means you want to measure its wealth, has said 'We will help'.

Now it may be a political decision to reverse that decision and to stop that aid. But it's a decision that is morally bankrupt in itself.

This is a monstrous problem that the US has. Policies are not determined to be correct or not based on their impact, but only on which party supports them. It's Republican? Then it must be right, whatever it is. Democratic? Then it must be wrong. And it goes without saying that the reverse is often true.

Hentenza · Sunday at 7:34 PM

Bradskii said:
As much as you'd like to class this as a political argument, it isn't. This is a moral matter.

Is only a moral matter if it actually is.

Bradskii said:
People need help. People are starving. People need medical asaistance. And the Congress of one of the richest countries that has ever existed, by whichever means you want to measure its wealth, has said 'We will help'.

Now it may be a political decision to reverse that decision and to stop that aid. But it's a decision that is morally bankrupt in itself.

This is a monstrous problem that the US has. Policies are not determined to be correct or not based on their impact, but only on which party supports them. It's Republican? Then it must be right, whatever it is. Democratic? Then it must be wrong. And it goes without saying that the reverse is often true.

Unresponsive rant.

Bradskii · Sunday at 10:03 PM

Hentenza said:
Is only a moral matter if it actually is.

You really think that the government making a decision to help the less well off with food and medical supplies and then the administration deciding to burn it all rather than give it away is not a moral matter? In what alternative reality does that make any sense?

Hentenza said:
Unresponsive rant.

It's certainly something to which you have difficulty in responding. There are some on the very far right in this thread who will admit that it's wrong. A bridge too far for you, obviously.

Always in His Presence · Sunday at 11:30 PM

Bradskii said:
It's basic humanity. Feeding those that are hungry. And it's it's not just a case of turning away when you have the opportunity to help. It's actively preventing those who want to help from doing so.

Your tribe response is noted.

Not just feed, but put in five star hotels, provided meals and medical and then hand thousands of dollars on pre paid debit cards

So much to the point of having to deny services to the people who paid the taxes that supplied all that.

Bradskii · Monday at 12:39 AM

Always in His Presence said:
Your tribe response is noted.

My tribe would be that of humans. Because this is basic humanity.

Always in His Presence said:
Not just feed, but put in five star hotels, provided meals and medical and then hand thousands of dollars on pre paid debit cards

This is about destroying food that was due to go to hungry people. Some people have already decided that it's wrong. And that would include you unless I'm mistaken? Ah, no, I wasn't. It does include you.

Always in His Presence said:
Yes I am. Wrong is wrong and always will be.

Well said. So stick with that. It puts you in a good light. But if you want to talk about US immigrants and the benefits that they might receive in the US then go open another thread and see if anyone is interested.

Clare73 · Monday at 11:28 AM

ViaCrucis said:
Legally innocent human life is an interesting choice of words

Yes, under the law murderers are subject to having their life taken.

ViaCrucis said:
But I'll let that slide.

The problem, of course, seems to be that you've been arguing that Donald Trump trumps all morality. Simply because he happens to be the big cheese in the White House.

Then you misunderstand.

Donald Trump is governed by law.
If the law allows him to act "immorally," then the remedy is to change the law.
Until then, his actions are according to the law.
That's as good as it gets for the body politic on planet earth now.

ViaCrucis said:
If preserving human life is what actually matters, then why are we okay with what this administration has been doing?

If it's not okay, the remedy is to change the law.

That's the way the power of the people works in a republic.

ViaCrucis said:
Because human life, in this country, is currently under threat by a regime that is actively harming, both by deliberate action (sending in federal agents to terrorize communities and black bag people seemingly indiscriminately) and by withholding life-saving aid (the "Big Beautiful BIll", burning food meant for the hungry because of the defunding and gutting of USAID, the particular horror story this thread is about).
So which is it?
Do I throw up my hands and proclaim the eternal lordship of God-Emperor Trump because, oh well, that's what the election results said in November. Or do I follow Jesus, and call evil evil?

You are free to believe and do whatever is lawful in this country.
We have a system of goverance by the will of the people.
That system is your remedy.

Clare73 · Monday at 11:54 AM

Bradskii said:
The reality of the matter? You are actually accusing me of ignoring the facts of the matter? That is simply not credible by any stretch of the imagination. Your comment is akin to 'let them eat cake'. I simply don't understand how anyone can support this action from a moral point of view. It seems that a political position overrides any sense of what is right or wrong.

It's basic humanity. Feeding those that are hungry. And it's it's not just a case of turning away when you have the opportunity to help.
It's actively preventing those who want to help from doing so.

A "revealing" way to frame anyone's freedom to send as much food as they wish, or to form organizations for those interested in doing so.

FreeinChrist · Monday at 11:54 AM

The legality of it is still questionable as lawsuits are pending.

As to USAid, AI provides this information:

Key points about USAID and Congressional authorization:

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: This act, passed by Congress, provided the initial authorization for the creation of USAID.
Executive Order 10973: President Kennedy used this order to establish USAID, consolidating various foreign assistance programs.
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998: This act formally established USAID as an independent establishment.
Congressional Oversight: Congress plays a crucial role in authorizing and funding USAID's activities.
Funding: USAID is funded through the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations.
Independent Establishment: While USAID operates within the executive branch, it is considered an independent establishment.
Secretary of State's Role: The Secretary of State provides policy guidance to USAID.

Clare73 · Monday at 12:25 PM

FreeinChrist said:
The legality of it is still questionable as lawsuits are pending.
As to USAid, AI provides this information:

Key points about USAID and Congressional authorization:
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: This act, passed by Congress, provided the initial authorization for the creation of USAID.
Executive Order 10973: President Kennedy used this order to establish USAID, consolidating various foreign assistance programs.

Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998: This act formally established USAID as an independent establishment.
Congressional Oversight: Congress plays a crucial role in authorizing and funding USAID's activities.
Funding: USAID is funded through the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations.
Independent Establishment: While USAID operates within the executive branch, it is considered an independent establishment.
Secretary of State's Role: The Secretary of State provides policy guidance to USAID.

You might want to check the audit to understand the problem with this independent establishment.

HARK! · Monday at 1:07 PM

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF

Aldebaran · Monday at 1:50 PM

THEAD HAS BEEN CLEANED OF POSTS NOT RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
LET'S TRY TO KEEP IT CLEANED!

essentialsaltes · Monday at 4:11 PM

A similar fate for some other frozen USAID aid

US to destroy almost $10m in contraceptives rather than send abroad for women in need

Supplies were almost certainly intended for women in Africa, two senior congressional aides says

Bradskii · Monday at 4:47 PM

Clare73 said:
...or to form organizations for those interested in doing so.

That's actually a good idea. The US could put aside a tiny fraction of the money it has available to help those in countries that need help. The money could be allocated by congress, it would keep the bad guys out of the picture, encourage others to help, have long term benefits for the US, save countless lives and...well, it's the morally correct thing to do and fulfills Christ's teachings. You could call it AidUS or something.

I mean, what would the mentality of the people be who could possibly argue against that? Especially on a Christian forum.

Trump Burns 500 Tons of Food Meant for the Hungry

CF Advisory team

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Jesus is the only Way

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

CF Advisory team

Blood-bought

שמע

NCC-1701-A

Fact-Based Lifeform

A similar fate for some other frozen USAID aid​

US to destroy almost $10m in contraceptives rather than send abroad for women in need​

Supplies were almost certainly intended for women in Africa, two senior congressional aides says​

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Similar threads

A similar fate for some other frozen USAID aid

US to destroy almost $10m in contraceptives rather than send abroad for women in need

Supplies were almost certainly intended for women in Africa, two senior congressional aides says