Orlando Buffalo Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago @Joe Ferguson forever and @The Frankish Reich what is the appropriate response from a president when a city has looting and rioting but the governor, mayor, and police chief want stop it? 1
Wacka Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago Lock up the governor, mayor and police chief. At least we know the mayor is a commie.
BillsFanNC Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 10 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: @Joe Ferguson forever and @The Frankish Reich what is the appropriate response from a president when a city has looting and rioting but the governor, mayor, and police chief want stop it? You should be asking two questions here: What is the appropriate response from a president? What is the appropriate response from president Trump? Two separate and completely different answers from these clowns. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 23 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: @Joe Ferguson forever and @The Frankish Reich what is the appropriate response from a president when a city has looting and rioting but the governor, mayor, and police chief want stop it? I don't see the case here for federalizing the guard. Not yet at least. Other law enforcement (border patrol) have been deployed, and nearly all of the dangerous stuff was in that weird little municipality of Paramount, which I'd never even heard of before this. This should be considered an extreme step reserved for truly extreme situations.
Roundybout Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 2 hours ago, SCBills said: Every lib today. It’s nothing more than optics. I fully support them rising up against ICE. Someone has to.
Wacka Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago I stated last year to watch the loony left get further unhinged the closer to election day we got.They haven't stopped 2
LDD Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago Six times in history...now 7. https://www.military.com/military-life/6-times-military-was-used-suppress-civilian-uprisings-us.html 1
SCBills Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 21 minutes ago, Roundybout said: It’s nothing more than optics. I fully support them rising up against ICE. Someone has to. You're so brave. Crying because the majority of this country won’t freely hand over the land our families were born, raised and buried on. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Author Posted 3 hours ago 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: 3. They wave Mexican flags but don't want to live there. 4. Libs always throw around the word authoritarianism when laws they don't like such as presenting yourself to US Customs to enter the country legally get enforced. 5. The rioters are magically transformed into the victims. 3. no, they'd prefer to live here. And if they're here illegally deport them. Just don't invoke the military. 4. No. straw man. I don't know a soul who is against presenting to customs on entry. That's what passports are for. 5. No. The feds are turned into villains.
SCBills Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: 3. no, they'd prefer to live here. And if they're here illegally deport them. Just don't invoke the military. 4. No. straw man. I don't know a soul who is against presenting to customs on entry. That's what passports are for. 5. No. The feds are turned into villains. How do you propose we get them out if they: A) Won’t leave B) Lib jurisdictions won’t make them leave C) Lib activists attack/block law enforcement from removing them Heres the answer… D) What happened last night Edited 3 hours ago by SCBills 1 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Author Posted 3 hours ago 50 minutes ago, SCBills said: see you in court. it'll probably end up in the rigged SC. Still, there may be some moral conservatives there.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 49 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I don't see the case here for federalizing the guard. Not yet at least. Other law enforcement (border patrol) have been deployed, and nearly all of the dangerous stuff was in that weird little municipality of Paramount, which I'd never even heard of before this. This should be considered an extreme step reserved for truly extreme situations. Do you believe the Border Patrol is appropriate to use in this situation? The Constitution was written with the assumption that people would want to defend their own, it was not written with the expectation a state and city could have molotov cocktails thrown and then state it was not a problem. 1
SCBills Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: see you in court. it'll probably end up in the rigged SC. Still, there may be some moral conservatives there. That guy I posted is one of the more rigorous constitutional conservatives there is, who criticizes Trump quite a bit. Your side is unhinged on this and has lost all legitimate standing. Edited 3 hours ago by SCBills 1
Doc Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 3 minutes ago, SCBills said: How do you propose we get them out if they: A) Won’t leave B) Lib jurisdictions won’t make them leave C) Lib activists attack/block law enforcement from removing them Heres the answer… D) What happened last night They don't have an answer. Because they want them here, including the criminals. It's not a cult... 2
SCBills Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 1 minute ago, Doc said: They don't have an answer. Because they want them here, including the criminals. It's not a cult... It’s always “we agree in theory” but “we hate the methods” Because they’re either being disingenuous and only say they agree to pander to the majority opinion OR they’re children incapable of doing adult things. I suppose both could be true. Edited 3 hours ago by SCBills 1
Doc Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 8 minutes ago, SCBills said: It’s always “we agree in theory” but “we hate the methods” Because they’re either being disingenuous and only say they agree to pander to the majority opinion OR they’re children incapable of doing adult things. I suppose both could be true. As I keep saying, it's a cult. Their leader is, amazingly enough, Donald Trump. But instead of doing what he says, they do the opposite. Even if it's about things they believed just before he took power. 2
Doc Brown Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: I don't see the case here for federalizing the guard. Not yet at least. Other law enforcement (border patrol) have been deployed, and nearly all of the dangerous stuff was in that weird little municipality of Paramount, which I'd never even heard of before this. This should be considered an extreme step reserved for truly extreme situations. It's a possibility you're right but I think the president has more information than us though. I do know that most people don't have any sympathy for rioters and looters. Edited 2 hours ago by Doc Brown
The Frankish Reich Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 13 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: It's a possibility you're right but I think the president has more information than us though. I do know that most people don't have any sympathy for rioters and looters. Law prof Steve Vladeck (read his Substack! He's great. Written for lawyers but understandable by informed non-lawyers) provides a little sanity here: There are a lot of misunderstandings and misinformation out there about what Trump has and hasn’t done, and given that I’ve covered these topics before, it seemed worth a quick explainer on why this move is a big deal—but why it also is not as drastic an escalation (or abuse) as many had feared, at least not yet. The TL;DR here is that Trump has not (yet) invoked the Insurrection Act, which means that the 2000 additional troops that will soon be brought to bear will not be allowed to engage in ordinary law enforcement activities without violating a different law—the Posse Comitatus Act. All that these troops will be able to do is provide a form of force protection and other logistical support for ICE personnel. Whether that, in turn, leads to further escalation is the bigger issue (and, indeed, may be the very purpose of their deployment). But at least as I’m writing this, we’re not there yet. That's a critical point. Right now, the National Guard troops cannot engage in law enforcement activities. They are limited to a support role. Use of the Insurrection Act would bring us into a whole new era. Let's hope we don't get there. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-california-national 1
Doc Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Law prof Steve Vladeck (read his Substack! He's great. Written for lawyers but understandable by informed non-lawyers) provides a little sanity here: There are a lot of misunderstandings and misinformation out there about what Trump has and hasn’t done, and given that I’ve covered these topics before, it seemed worth a quick explainer on why this move is a big deal—but why it also is not as drastic an escalation (or abuse) as many had feared, at least not yet. The TL;DR here is that Trump has not (yet) invoked the Insurrection Act, which means that the 2000 additional troops that will soon be brought to bear will not be allowed to engage in ordinary law enforcement activities without violating a different law—the Posse Comitatus Act. All that these troops will be able to do is provide a form of force protection and other logistical support for ICE personnel. Whether that, in turn, leads to further escalation is the bigger issue (and, indeed, may be the very purpose of their deployment). But at least as I’m writing this, we’re not there yet. That's a critical point. Right now, the National Guard troops cannot engage in law enforcement activities. They are limited to a support role. Use of the Insurrection Act would bring us into a whole new era. Let's hope we don't get there. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/156-federalizing-the-california-national Yeah, they're there in a support role at present. And hopefully their presence is a deterrent to further escalation. If not then...they'll need to be dealt with.
Recommended Posts