Trump is using the military to crush freedom of speech

[NatMorton]

Please this why I think you are hypocritical, you will say states should have absolute dominion when it comes to abortion and then you will turn around and support the government using military intervention when a state does something you don't like.

You can’t cite any relevant law, so it’s clear you do not know what you’re talking about.

 

[AZRWinger]

Why should care hypocrisy gotchas from a movement that does nothing but contradict itself and demands this:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

Gotchas is exactly what the Democrat condemnation of Trump’s National Guard deployment decisions is. J6 too slow. LA too fast. Classic Goldilocks style critique.

Can't discuss the fact the J6 protest ended with the protesters leaving peacefully after 3 hours without National Guard deployment. Compare that to the radical Leftist mob violently besieging downtown LA in defense of the California sanctuary state openly defying the rule of law governing immigration.

Nice unattributed quote from a demagogue attacking Conservatism. Completely lacking in relevance to the discussion.

So what's the difference between Jan 06 rioters and the current anti-ICE protesters? Why do you think the rules should not apply to the Jan 06 protesters?

The difference can be seen in your characterization of J6, riot, and the radical Leftist siege of LA, protesters. There is no denying J6 was spontaneous or that the protest ended peacefully after 3 hours. From the ICE alert network of radical Leftist so-called immigrant rights groups to the planned ambush of Waymo vehicles to the cadre of violent Leftist street gangs descending on LA fully equipped to do violence in opposition to Federal law, the high level of organization is apparent. The Leftist thugs returned night after night to show their opposition to the rule of law.

The senior prosecutor for J6 boasted about their shock and awe policy of seeking maximum charges. The FBI conducted the largest manhunt in US history pursuing J6 suspects. How are the rules not being applied to J6 protesters.

Because look at the stats, right wing terrorism has killed far more people than left wing terrorism and you don't seem to care at all about the violence your movement is causing.

Even if we temporarily ignore the glaring false equivalence of lone wolf mass murderers and the organized mob violence of LA it's still nothing but whataboutism.

 

[Yes_Minister]

You can’t cite any relevant law, so it’s clear you do not know what you’re talking about.

You being hypocritical is not against the law, but means your supposed all important small government "states rights" ideology is clearly something you throw away when convenient and thus deserves to be dismissed.

 

[mrjurrs]

Wow, all you can do is sling insults.

Post one thing I said that was not factual.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Gotchas is exactly what the Democrat condemnation of Trump’s National Guard deployment decisions is. J6 too slow. LA too fast. Classic Goldilocks style critique.

Can't discuss the fact the J6 protest ended with the protesters leaving peacefully after 3 hours without National Guard deployment. Compare that to the radical Leftist mob violently besieging downtown LA in defense of the California sanctuary state openly defying the rule of law governing immigration.

So it was fine for the Jan 6 rioters to beat up cops?




Also the Jan 6 protest was organized:



Trump supporters are the biggest hypocrites on Earth, I couldn't care less if they claim I am a hypocrite, they will always demand others follow rules that they will break with impunity. Any charge of hypocrisy from a Trump supporter is pure projection.

Nice unattributed quote from a demagogue attacking Conservatism. Completely lacking in relevance to the discussion.

The difference can be seen in your characterization of J6, riot, and the radical Leftist siege of LA, protesters. There is no denying J6 was spontaneous or that the protest ended peacefully after 3 hours. From the ICE alert network of radical Leftist so-called immigrant rights groups to the planned ambush of Waymo vehicles to the cadre of violent Leftist street gangs descending on LA fully equipped to do violence in opposition to Federal law, the high level of organization is apparent. The Leftist thugs returned night after night to show their opposition to the rule of law.

The senior prosecutor for J6 boasted about their shock and awe policy of seeking maximum charges. The FBI conducted the largest manhunt in US history pursuing J6 suspects. How are the rules not being applied to J6 protesters.

Even if we temporarily ignore the glaring false equivalence of lone wolf mass murderers and the organized mob violence of LA it's still nothing but whataboutism.

The stats don't lie, your movement is far more violent than the left and your crying about "left wing violence" is clearly a joke when you will do nothing to stop right wing violence.

Admit it, if a Democrat President was using the military to quell right wing protests in Alabama or Texas, you would be screaming about how unfair it is, but since Trump is using the military against left wing protests in LA, you are fine with it.

 

[NatMorton]

You being hypocritical is not against the law, but means your supposed all important small government "states rights" ideology is clearly something you throw away when convenient and thus deserves to be dismissed.

You call me hypocritical, but you can't cite the relevant law to back your assertion, can you?

You're pushing a fraud argument, and we both know it.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Yes, but you seem to think supporting Trump's policy on California is stroking Trump's ego but supporting his policy on Iran is not. By supporting him on Iran you're also stroking his ego, so stroking his ego seems to be a material concern ... except when it isn't.

No. I think they both stroking his ego. I simply think the bombing of Iranian nuclear capacity is also correct. Both can be true at the same time.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The APA's Goldwater rule forbids mental health professionals from diagnosing political figures they have not examined personally as a matter of ethics. But to Orange Man Bad zealots ethics are of no concern.

Were you aware the KGB used so-called mental illness as a pretext to jail political opponents? It's another Soviet tactic faithfully copied by Democrats.

Sorry. I’m not subject to the Goldwater Rule.

I’m simply a retired police detective with minor backgrounds in both soc and psych (my studies where in human dynamics* which covers both sciences) but no shingle. I’ve seen plenty of folks with criminal pathological issues. Trump would fit in nicely among them.

* Human dynamics is the study of how individuals and groups interact and behave in various contexts, focusing on the interplay of mental, emotional, relational, and physical factors. It explores the patterns and processes involved in human actions and interactions, including both individual and social behaviors. This field draws on multiple disciplines like psychology, sociology, and anthropology to understand the complexities of human behavior.

 

[Yes_Minister]

You call me hypocritical, but you can't cite the relevant law to back your assertion, can you?

You're pushing a fraud argument, and we both know it.

You are the one in other threads about saying states' rights should be supreme when it comes to say abortion, but when it comes to military intervention into the affairs of other states, then states rights suddenly don't matter. Would you be fine with a Democrat President sending in the military to quell the right-wing protests in, say, Texas, if they decide they are too violent?

I found your support for states' rights here:

Post in thread 'The abortion issue paralyzing our country is easily solved.'

May 20, 2023

Nobody said anything to the contrary so please spare me the irrelevant drivel

It is.a democratic process, but when it is contrary to the majority of the people it is not democracy but an abuse of it.

Rubbish. Those legislators are accountable to voters. If they don’t express the will of the people they will be replaced by those who do.

Back to our Alabama example, what evidence do you have that abortion bans are “contrary to the majority of the people?”

• NatMorton

Which seems to actively contradict the argument you are making now.

 

[NatMorton]

You are the one in other threads about saying states' rights should be supreme when it comes to say abortion, but when it comes to military intervention into the affairs of other states, then states rights suddenly don't matter. Would you be fine with a Democrat President sending in the military to quell the right-wing protests in, say, Texas, if they decide they are too violent?

I found your support for states' rights here:

Post in thread 'The abortion issue paralyzing our country is easily solved.'

May 20, 2023

Nobody said anything to the contrary so please spare me the irrelevant drivel

It is.a democratic process, but when it is contrary to the majority of the people it is not democracy but an abuse of it.

Rubbish. Those legislators are accountable to voters. If they don’t express the will of the people they will be replaced by those who do.

Back to our Alabama example, what evidence do you have that abortion bans are “contrary to the majority of the people?”

• NatMorton

Which seems to actively contradict the argument you are making now.

You're not going to accept this, but the reality here is that you simply do not understand the concept of states rights. Just because a state lacks a right to do something does not mean they lack any rights. Just because a state has a right to do something doesn't mean they have a right to do anything. There is nothing wrong or hypocritical about arguing that a state has a right to do X but lacks the right to do Y. In fact, to assume it must be uniform either way -- as you're implying -- is simple nonsense. Our system of government rests on a balance of powers between federal and state governments.

To your specific examples, yes, I believe states have the right to define abortion law because there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them from doing so, and the 9th and 10th amendments limit the federal government's powers to enumerated powers. Now, among those enumerated federal powers is the authority to stand up an army and place the President in charge of that army. The Constitution goes on to expressly prohibit the states from keeping a standing army. The California National Guard is therefore not Gavin Newsom's to command. It's Donald Trump's to command. While a power to call out the National Guard has been delegated to states in cases of emergency, states do not overrule the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces on military matters, ever.

Now, without understanding states right or the US Constitution, you have found yourself easily spun. You've seen headlines, no doubt, that Trump's calling out the CA National Guard over Newsom's objections is "unprecedented!". And that may be true, but it is not illegal, and that's the point.

I wouldn't argue the US Constitution with me, Yes'. You're out of your depth.

 

[Yes_Minister]

You're not going to accept this, but the reality here is that you simply do not understand the concept of states rights. Just because a state lacks a right to do something does not mean they lack any rights. Just because a state has a right to do something doesn't mean they have a right to do anything. There is nothing wrong or hypocritical about arguing that a state has a right to do X but lacks the right to do Y. In fact, to assume it must be uniform either way -- as you're implying -- is simple nonsense. Our system of government rests on a balance of powers between federal and state governments.

To your specific examples, yes, I believe states have the right to define abortion law because there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them from doing so, and the 9th and 10th amendments limit the federal government's powers to enumerated powers. Now, among those enumerated federal powers is the authority to stand up an army and place the President in charge of that army. The Constitution goes on to expressly prohibit the states from keeping a standing army. The California National Guard is therefore not Gavin Newsom's to command. It's Donald Trump's to command. While a power to call out the National Guard has been delegated to states in cases of emergency, states do not overrule the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces on military matters, ever.

Now, without understanding states right or the US Constitution, you have found yourself easily spun. You've seen headlines, no doubt, that Trump's calling out the CA National Guard over Newsom's objections is "unprecedented!". And that may be true, but it is not illegal, and that's the point.

I wouldn't argue the US Constitution with me, Yes'. You're out of your depth.

Okay, so if a Democrat President wanted to send the military to quell right wing protests in say Texas or Alabama because he determined they were violent, you would be fine with that?

It seems like your small government ideology only applies when it's convenient for you.

 

[NatMorton]

Okay, so if a Democrat President wanted to send the military to quell right wing protests in say Texas or Alabama because he determined they were violent, you would be fine with that?

Of course.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Of course.

Okay and this is solely up the President discretion? Seems like could be easily abused, that a President can say any protests he doesn't like are violent and send in the military to quell them. What's the remedy exactly? The Supreme Court give the US President broad immunity and impeachment is more or less broken, you will never get 2 thirds of the Senate to impeach a President nowadays.

The US Constitution is like DOS for Democracy, an okay operating system at one point, but has become so old and outdated, it's full of loopholes that can make it increasingly easy to set aside. Especially if Trump can use an executive order to change the 14th amendment, what are the courts or the Congress doing about that exactly? Canada is like the Windows XP of Democracy, still out of date, but nowhere to the extent your constitution is.

 

[AZRWinger]

But he is right in this case.

View attachment 67580213

That is the area of downtown Los Angles that was in question. Seven square blocks of huge Los Angles. Not the entire city. Just a small area around City Hall and some federal buildings [the cite of the protests [ICE's local HQ if I am not mistaking but I am not sure]. The Police Chief didn't want the National Guard, they certainly didn't want the Army. Nor did the Mayor or the Governor. Trump crammed them down their throats because he had a point to make, and as usual that point was all about him. What else would one expect from a pathological narcissist.

Seven square blocks besieged by a violent Leftist mob shut down city hall and the Federal offices. It classic Leftist anarchist strategy to target government with violence.

The riot began ostensibly as a protest against ICE raids. It's no surprise that so-called sanctuary state officials oppose restoration of order. LAPD took 2 hours or more responding to ICE officers under attack by violent Leftists. When they did finally show up their response showed they were incapable or unwilling to restore order.

But hey let's pretend it's necessary to trust the same Democrat hegemony that botched wild fire protection resulting in tremendous destruction to control an organized mob of violent Leftists.

 

[NatMorton]

Okay and this is solely up the President discretion? Seems like could be easily abused, that a President can say any protests he doesn't like are violent and send in the military to quell them. What's the remedy exactly? The Supreme Court give the US President broad immunity and impeachment is more or less broken, you will never get 2 thirds of the Senate to impeach a President nowadays.

Yes, it can be abused, and the remedy for Presidential abuse of authority is also in the Constitution: impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.

The US Constitution is like DOS for Democracy, an okay operating system at one point, but has become so old and outdated, it's full of loopholes that can make it increasingly easy to set aside. Especially if Trump can use an executive order to change the 14th amendment, what are the courts or the Congress doing about that exactly? Canada is like the Windows XP of Democracy, still out of date, but nowhere to the extent your constitution is.

Yes, the Constitution is old, but it is absolutely not outdated. It remains, arguably, the greatest expression of democratic governance in this history of the planet and continues to serve us well today. It was instrumental in getting us through Trump's first term and it will see us through his second.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Yes, it can be abused, and the remedy for Presidential abuse of authority is also in the Constitution: impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.

And the impeachment power is broken, you will never get 2 thirds of the Senate to agree to impeach a president, especially over something as partisan as whether the President can use the military to target protest from an opposition movement.

The US Constitution was clearly not designed for modern partisan political parties.

Yes, the Constitution is old, but it is absolutely not outdated. It remains, arguably, the greatest expression of democratic governance in this history of the planet and continues to serve us well today. It was instrumental in getting us through Trump's first term and it will see us through his second.

Trump can apparently change the Constitution by executive order and the courts and Congress will neither do nothing or do very little to stop him.

The Weimar constitution had a lot of good things in it, it also had loopholes in it that allowed it to be set aside and become a dictatorship.

Your constitution is starting to look like the Weimar constitution. Frankly no other country in the world thinks copying stuff from the US like gerrymandering and the Electoral College is a good idea.

 

[NatMorton]

And the impeachment power is broken, you will never get 2 thirds of the Senate to agree to impeach a president, especially over something as partisan as whether the President can use the military to target protest from an opposition movement.

No, that's not a broken process. It's one that's resistant to partisan hot-headedness.

The US Constitution was clearly not designed for modern partisan political parties.

Correct. It's a Constitution that has adapted over time using its amendment process. The Framers were very forward looking.

Trump can apparently change the Constitution by executive order and the courts and Congress will neither do nothing or do very little to stop him.

No, he cannot. Who fills your head with this nonsense, the hacks at The Guardian?

The Weimar constitution had a lot of good things in it, it also had loopholes in it that allowed it to be set aside and become a dictatorship.

Your constitution is starting to look like the Weimar constitution. Frankly no other country in the world thinks copying stuff from the US like gerrymandering and the Electoral College is a good idea.

Say, is your country still locking people up for unwoke social media posts? Sure looks like the UK could benefit from a 234 year old American law. We'd be happy to arrange a licensing agreement if you ever decide freedom of speech is important.

 

[Yes_Minister]

No, that's not a broken process. It's one that's resistant to partisan hot-headedness.

So a President can abuse his power if his party in the Senate is unwilling to impeach him?

Correct. It's a Constitution that has adapted over time using its amendment process. The Framers were very forward looking.

They weren't gods, they can't see into the future. Clearly there were a lot of things they couldn't predict.

No, he cannot. Who fills your head with this nonsense, the hacks at The Guardian?

So did Trump sign an EO changing the 14 amendment and what has Congress or the courts done about it?

Say, is your country still locking people up for unwoke social media posts? Sure looks like the UK could benefit from a 234 year old American law. We'd be happy to arrange a licensing agreement if you ever decide freedom of speech is important.

What's the prison population in the US and what is the prison population in Canada? Freest country in the world my foot:

What is the Prison Industrial Complex? – Tufts University Prison Divestment

sites.tufts.edu

 

[NatMorton]

So a President can abuse his power if his party in the Senate is unwilling to impeach him?

The Senate doesn't impeach, the House does. As I said, you're not familiar with the US Constitution. You should learn about a topic before you begin arguing what it means.

They weren't gods, they can't see into the future. Clearly there were a lot of things they couldn't predict.

But they were wise, which is why they defined the Amendment process.

So did Trump sign an EO changing the 14 amendment and what has Congress or the courts done about it?

No, he has not. Whoever told you that is lying to you.

What's the prison population in the US and what is the prison population in Canada? Freest country in the world my foot:

What is the Prison Industrial Complex? – Tufts University Prison Divestment

sites.tufts.edu

Don't worry, you can say anything here. We won't report you to the local authorities.

 

[AZRWinger]

So it was fine for the Jan 6 rioters to beat up cops?

Irrelevant video link deleted for length.

Nope. Was it fine for a mob of violemt Leftists to attack the police with rocks, chunks of cement, explosive fireworks, laser pointers and Molotov cocktails in LA?

ICE alone is facing an over 400% increase in violence against its officers. This assault is organized and ongoing.

DHS Releases Statement on Violent Rioters Assaulting ICE Officers in Los Angeles, CA and Calls on Democrat Politicians to Tone Down Dangerous Rhetoric About ICE | Homeland Security

Over 1,000 rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE law enforcement officers, slashed tires, defaced buildings, and taxpayer funded property.

www.dhs.gov

Also the Jan 6 protest was organized.

The NPR article refers to the RALLY organizers. No doubt the RALLY on the Capitol grounds was organized. The RALLY organizers had obtained a permit with a sign off by Capitol police for the event.

Trump supporters are the biggest hypocrites on Earth, I couldn't care less if they claim I am a hypocrite, they will always demand others follow rules that they will break with impunity. Any charge of hypocrisy from a Trump supporter is pure projection.

There it is, the old playground taunt "I know you are, but what am I?" Instead of attempting a reasoned response.

The stats don't lie, your movement is far more violent than the left and your crying about "left wing violence" is clearly a joke when you will do nothing to stop right wing violence.

You have no reasoned response opposing the decision to deploy the National Guard in LA.

The lone wolf shooters you claim prove right wing violence that didn't kill themselves are either dead by police action or locked up on jail. That's not a joke.

Admit it, if a Democrat President was using the military to quell right wing protests in Alabama or Texas, you would be screaming about how unfair it is, but since Trump is using the military against left wing protests in LA, you are fine with it.

Admit it you can't defend the unreasoned criticism of President Trump’s real decision to deploy the National Guard in LA. So you pose a highly improbable hypothetical and imagined response as an attempt at deflection.

 

[Yes_Minister]

The Senate doesn't impeach, the House does. As I said, you're not familiar with the US Constitution. You should learn about a topic before you begin arguing what it means.

Okay, why wasn't Trump removed from office after the Jan 6 riot?


You need a 2 third majority in the Senate to actually remove a President from office, an impeachment from Congress is meaningless if the Senate is unwilling to actually remove the President you from office. You know this, you are playing bad faith games.

It's the difference between an enforcement mechanism in theory and having one that actually works in practice.

But they were wise, which is why they defined the Amendment process.

And yet they didn't for see the impeachment process becoming irrelevant because a partisan Senate would never remove a corrupt President by the year 2025.

Being wise doesn't make you a god who can see into the future.

No, he has not. Whoever told you that is lying to you.

Redirect Notice

Don't worry, you can say anything here. We won't report you to the local authorities.

That is a glib dodge.

If Canada is more authoritarian than the US, why does the US have a larger prison population than the US than Canada or even China?

Most prisoners per capita by country 2025| Statista

El Salvador struggles with high levels of violent crime, reflected in the fact that it has the largest prison population per capita worldwide.

www.statista.com

Maybe there is no point in debating you if you are unwilling to debate in good faith.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Seven square blocks besieged by a violent Leftist mob shut down city hall and the Federal offices. It classic Leftist anarchist strategy to target government with violence.

The riot began ostensibly as a protest against ICE raids. It's no surprise that so-called sanctuary state officials oppose restoration of order. LAPD took 2 hours or more responding to ICE officers under attack by violent Leftists. When they did finally show up their response showed they were incapable or unwilling to restore order.

But hey let's pretend it's necessary to trust the same Democrat hegemony that botched wild fire protection resulting in tremendous destruction to control an organized mob of violent Leftists.

It violates my Libertarian side to see the military acting against local elected leaders wishes. Elections do have consequences. The locals out those leaders in the mayor and council seats, the Governors mansion. They didn't petition the federal government to intercede.

You can't say you are pro the will of the people and condone what Trump did.

 

[AZRWinger]

It violates my Libertarian side to see the military acting against local elected leaders wishes. Elections do have consequences. The locals out those leaders in the mayor and council seats, the Governors mansion. They didn't petition the federal government to intercede.

The California Democrat hegemony's open defiance of Federal immigration law precipitatated the LA riots.

The LAPD took more than 2 hours to respond while ICE officers were under attack. Even then they were unable or unwilling to restore order.

The People also chose the President was he supposed to let LA burn at the hands of Leftist thugs because California Democrats can't accept the election results?

You can't say you are pro the will of the people and condone what Trump did.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The California Democrat hegemony's open defiance of Federal immigration law precipitatated the LA riots.

The LAPD took more than 2 hours to respond while ICE officers were under attack. Even then they were unable or unwilling to restore order.

The People also chose the President was he supposed to let LA burn at the hands of Leftist thugs because California Democrats can't accept the election results?

The federal law doesn’t take into account the entirety of that region. It’s history and economics. The whole area was Mexico. Its economy is tied to those people, doing what they do within it. These folks aren’t “illegals” to them. They are neighbors, They are -eookexwho work on and jntheir houses. Their local restaurants. They clothing stores. Etc. and so forth.

There are problems. They want them resolved. Not in this way.

 

[AZRWinger]

The federal law doesn’t take into account the entirety of that region. It’s history and economics. The whole area was Mexico. Its economy is tied to those people, doing what they do within it. These folks aren’t “illegals” to them. They are neighbors, They are -eookexwho work on and jntheir houses. Their local restaurants. They clothing stores. Etc. and so forth.

Claiming Federal law should be regional confirms the Democrats imposition of California sanctuary state laws is responsible for the LA riots. Appeals to "history and economics" as a rationale to defy the rule of law shows the Democrats true duplicity.

There are problems. They want them resolved. Not in this way.

Indeed, the violent Democrat endorsed mob wants anarchy followed by secession to rejoin Mexico.