Taro T

The whole point of due process isn't to keep illegal immigrants in the country. The point is to make sure we don't try to send actual citizens out of the country. And "due process" doesn't necessarily mean a trial. It can be substantially simpler and expedited. It means making sure we aren't treating citizens as illegal aliens.

Pretty sure this is the clip he's referring to. Yes, the ABC reporter really did say that bringing LEOs to the area could make things worse by showing up because people are just having fun burning cars.

Hmm. 1st time in 60 years. Wonder what was happening 60 years ago. And why did the federal government need to step in to defend the rights of citizens that were being denied their rights by their state and local government. Both Democrat governors (then and now) claimed they had things under control and didn't need any help. One was wrong 60 or so years ago and this one is just as wrong as even the LAPD Chief admits.

She's likely not wrong. The LAPD probably CAN quell the riots. But without the Mayor's permission, they MAY not. From all that's been reported, it doesn't seem that she's given them the permission to fully do their jobs. So for all intents and purposes, they can't. But they actually could if they were allowed to. Semantics.

Two digit? Are you including a number after a decimal point? Because from this vantage point, you seem to be giving him more credit than he is due.

Good for you. Seriously. Couple of questions for you, if you'd be so kind. If you ever had a defendant threaten you, did you get security or other resources to handle credible threats? Also, out of curiosity when were you a prosecutor? It certainly seems that "crazy" has ramped up significantly in the past few years. And, not that it matters, a relative of mine is a State Attorney and has prosecuted all sorts of crimes very similarly to yourself. There has not been a constant barage on X or Bluesky or Rumble or ??? trying to get them doxxed, attacked, or killed nor any family handled in a like manner. These LEOs working as and with ICE ARE getting a lot of that sort of attention. And again, would much prefer we could go back to where were were 20+ years ago when serious credible threats against LEOs in these sorts of jobs were significantly rarer. But, it's really hard to get the genie back in the bottle.

Is domestic abuse a FEDERAL crime? Wouldn't that fall under state and local statutes?

Did they "literally sign up" to have their families put directly in harm's way? No sane person signs up for that. And they shouldn't be expected to have to do so. Again, am not advocating for them to not be indentifiable at all. But we can't be setting them up to be ambushed off duty or worse have their famiy member ambushed. And let's face it. There are people (at least 1 even here on this site quite disgustingly) advocating for serious harm to befall those LEOs.

What they mean by doxxed is exactly what it means to be doxxed. Their names, photos, addresses, names of family members all get made public. And THAT is done to try to keep people from performing that job. As long as the pro-illegals are using that as a tactic, the LEOs should be able to keep their name and image out of the public's eye. That's not to say they should not be identifiable in any way. They should wear clothing that clearly indicates what unit they're with (unless they're undercover as we've typically understood an undercover operation) and also via serial # or other indicia should be able to be identified by superiors and the court system should they themselves break the law. They also should have ALL the agents wearing body cameras with sound capability to be able to figure out should an accusation be made whether or not it is legit. In a perfect world, yes, all of them should show their faces and give their names; but we don't live in a perfect world. That seems like a reasonable compromise to account for that fact.

Not saying ANY of this is staged or fake; just answering your question of what's in it for 47? Well, he's claimed prior to getting reelected that he wants the Epstein files released. His opponents have been calling Epstein's client list a nothing burger and imply (or explicitly state) that following through on releasing those names would be just going after his political enemies with no actual meat on the bones of any of the accusations. Musk said that 47 shows up IN the Epstein files. That's common knowledge to EVERYBODY because he flew on one of Epstein's other planes from FLA to NYC, he was at many parties that Epstein was at and was photographed with him, and he banned him from Mar-a-Lago. But there has been nothing brought forth yet that indicates he ever went to any of Epstein's properties nor that he specifically took the Lolita Express to Epstein Island. And NOW Democrats like Swalwell are yelling that the Epstein files MUST be released. We know 42 flew to the Island. As did other luminaries like Bill Gates. So, now, much like Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch, 47 is about to get thrown into the Briar Patch too, which is exactly what he wants and the morons that hate him will be the ones that got them released. IF this stuff is fake; that's one big reason why 47 would want to be playing the charade.

AFTER completion of his sentence (provided he gets convicted) he'll be sent back to El Salvador? We're going to get to pay to keep him in a super max for how many decades before he's extradited again? HOW is THIS a win for ANYONE?

It is also a definitional component of far-left communism. Authoritarianism in any form gets those that don't go along with the program imprisoned if they're lucky. Mostly, those that don't go along simply end up in unmarked graves.

On immigration policy and on foreign policy (the tariff stuff is economic policy, not foreign policy), he's been much better than where we would've been had the Joyful One been elected. When / where federal judicial branch openings are available, he'll be significantly better than she would have been. There is 0.0% chance DoGE would even have been attempted under her. And continued attempts to stiffle free speech would have ramped up just like they're continuing in the EU. On the rest of it, well, he had been a Democrat for most of his life.

Yet another way still to look at it is "minimum wage" is SUPPOSED to be for those entering the labor market or those simply supplementing their other income sources. Those jobs are not meant to be careers nor for raising families. The taxpayer isn't subsidizing the HS student working to have money to afford a car and to find out just why he/she wants to go on to college nor the SS recipient that wants to be able to work part time for whatever reason(s) that usually aren't related to being able to avoid having to have dog food on the table. Yes, there are those that aren't in those starting out / supplementing categories that need miminum wage jobs. And many of them fall into the categories of individuals you mention above. And absolutely those are the people that SNAP is tailor made to help. The question(s) to be answered is how do you get those that are mulitgenerationally in the welfare system out of it. And personally believe that starts by fixing the educational system particularly in inner cities and impoverished rural areas and also by incentivizing rather than penalizing two parent families. Realizing there is no overnight fix to issues that have engulfed at least 60 years worth of people growing up in that same situation.

Still find it hilariously ironic that these same people that burn Teslas, releasing untold amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, are pretty much all climate change warriors. There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere and it is an EXISTENTIAL CRISIS and we must do EVERYTHING in our power to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere except when our own inner demons would like to see something burn. The CO2 released from those actions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the CO2 that causes global warming. (Won't even get into how the release of toxic substances into the atmosphere from burning (the combustible portions) of cars might also be detrimental to the environmentalists causes.)