• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP: Pentagon readies force to invade … Minneapolis?

Questerr said:
Except Posse Comitatus prevents it. But then again, Trump has never met a law he wouldn’t violate for his own gain.
Click to expand...

If you had read the article, you would have learned that the Insurrection Act of 1807 authorizes such use of military force and it's exactly what happened during the Rodney King Riots.
 
Questerr said:
Except Posse Comitatus prevents it. But then again, Trump has never met a law he wouldn’t violate for his own gain.
Click to expand...

From the OP article:
"Can Trump actually order such a domestic deployment? Under the Insurrection Act of 1807, yes, and it has been done before. In fact, that’s precisely what happened in the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Technically speaking, the law requires an actual “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” but Walz’ comments make that a fairly easy case for the White House to make. It also requires that the emergency deprives US citizens of “a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law,” and that “the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.” Right now, that sounds like a very good description of Minnesota’s position, as businesses burn and the state orders citizens to remain in their homes while disorder prevails."
 
apdst said:
If you had read the article, you would have learned that the Insurrection Act of 1807 authorizes such use of military force and it's exactly what happened during the Rodney King Riots.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of the supposedly “patriotic” Oathkeepers or 3%ers or any of the so called militias claiming they stand against oppressive government will show up to fight the Army being used on American soil against American citizens. My bet is zero.

They are only for white rights.
 
mike2810 said:
From the OP article:
"Can Trump actually order such a domestic deployment? Under the Insurrection Act of 1807, yes, and it has been done before. In fact, that’s precisely what happened in the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Technically speaking, the law requires an actual “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” but Walz’ comments make that a fairly easy case for the White House to make. It also requires that the emergency deprives US citizens of “a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law,” and that “the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.” Right now, that sounds like a very good description of Minnesota’s position, as businesses burn and the state orders citizens to remain in their homes while disorder prevails."
Click to expand...

It’s interesting how that act gets used against POC’s but not for instance when there’s an armed insurrection of white people, like at Bundy Ranch.
 
Questerr said:
Except Posse Comitatus prevents it. But then again, Trump has never met a law he wouldn’t violate for his own gain.
Click to expand...
The Posse Comitatus Act doesn't prevent the military from providing additional security forces to support the state’s National Guard or police.
 
Questerr said:
I wonder how many of the supposedly “patriotic” Oathkeepers or 3%ers or any of the so called militias claiming they stand against oppressive government will show up to fight the Army being used on American soil against American citizens. My bet is zero.

They are only for white rights.
Click to expand...

We know you won't be out there...lol
 
Bodecea said:
Hope they weed out the white supremacist provocateurs.
Click to expand...

You actually believe all those thousands of black folks are following white supremacists? :lamo
 
mike2810 said:
From the OP article:
"Can Trump actually order such a domestic deployment? Under the Insurrection Act of 1807, yes, and it has been done before. In fact, that’s precisely what happened in the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Technically speaking, the law requires an actual “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” but Walz’ comments make that a fairly easy case for the White House to make. It also requires that the emergency deprives US citizens of “a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law,” and that “the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.” Right now, that sounds like a very good description of Minnesota’s position, as businesses burn and the state orders citizens to remain in their homes while disorder prevails."
Click to expand...

Is this due to the fact that the protesters are not social distancing? Thus putting peoples lives at risk.
 
Questerr said:
It’s interesting how that act gets used against POC’s but not for instance when there’s an armed insurrection of white people, like at Bundy Ranch.
Click to expand...

The Bundy's were on private property and they weren't causing harm to the property and safety of other citizens. It comes as no surprise that you don't see the difference.
 
To bad Trump didn't use the same vigor to attack the virus uprising ...
 
apdst said:
The Bundy's were on private property and they weren't causing harm to the property and safety of other citizens. It comes as no surprise that you don't see the difference.
Click to expand...

Ah okay, so certain kinds of armed insurrection are okay, or at least they are okay so long as the perpetrators have the correct skin color. Good to know.

At Malhuer, the Bundy’s most definitely caused property damage and weren’t on private property. Would you have supported the US Army being used against them?
 
apdst said:
Do you condemn the riots? Should force be used to quell them?
Click to expand...

“A riot is the language of the unheard.” I condemn the ****ed up situation regarding police actions in America that has resulted in riots. I condemn the disease itself and not a symptom of it.

No, the police should back off and let people cool off rather than showing up every time to escalate things. They kicked off the riots by responding to protests with violence.
 
Questerr said:
“A riot is the language of the unheard.” I condemn the ****ed up situation regarding police actions in America that has resulted in riots. I condemn the disease itself and not a symptom of it.

No, the police should back off and let people cool off rather than showing up every time to escalate things. They kicked off the riots by responding to protests with violence.
Click to expand...

Like I said: you support the riots. :lamo
 
Questerr said:
It’s interesting how that act gets used against POC’s but not for instance when there’s an armed insurrection of white people, like at Bundy Ranch.
Click to expand...

Maybe the number of people (protesters) has something to do with it.
 
Questerr said:
Ah okay, so certain kinds of armed insurrection are okay, or at least they are okay so long as the perpetrators have the correct skin color. Good to know.

At Malhuer, the Bundy’s most definitely caused property damage and weren’t on private property. Would you have supported the US Army being used against them?
Click to expand...

The invasion of the Bundy Ranch asn't an insurrection.

They didn't damage any private property.
 
Chomsky said:
To bad Trump didn't use the same vigor to attack the virus uprising ...
Click to expand...

Look who the virus affected.........


He broke western on Twitter after 48 hours.
 
washunut said:
Is this due to the fact that the protesters are not social distancing? Thus putting peoples lives at risk.
Click to expand...

IDK.
Is it due to the fact that buildings were torched, private property destroyed, thus putting peoples lives at risk that had nothing to do with the Floyd incident?
 
apdst said:
Like I said: you support the riots. :lamo
Click to expand...

I support riots in the same way the Founders supported the assault and attempted murder of English tax officials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom