EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2714
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany12004 Posts
On January 05 2016 09:20 Reaper9 wrote: Having supplies/a supply line is one of the most basic necessities of warfare/armed resistance. So, they want people to mail them supplies...which means using a government service. Use your own two feet, lazy bastards. I am not a 100% certain that that is how a siege works. Usually if you are under siege you have to deal with the supplies you have on hand, as the siegers won't let anyone carry the snacks in there. So if they don't have food or hostages in there, that simplifies the solution greatly. Simply don't let anyone enter, turn of water and electricity to the building, and wait a few days, at which piunt they will probably decide that eating is a much more important thing than their inane cause. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
On January 05 2016 09:33 Simberto wrote: I am not a 100% certain that that is how a siege works. Usually if you are under siege you have to deal with the supplies you have on hand, as the siegers won't let anyone carry the snacks in there. So if they don't have food or hostages in there, that simplifies the solution greatly. Simply don't let anyone enter, turn of water and electricity to the building, and wait a few days, at which piunt they will probably decide that eating is a much more important thing than their inane cause. Given they entered the property first, you would think they would have brought supplies. Now they are surrounded in a siege. I am well aware that all the police has to do is shut off water and heat. Then again, I am also well aware that long term planning is not the strong point of a lot of my fellow Americans... | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2016 09:33 Nyxisto wrote: I don't understand their problem in the first place. Isn't the land they're supposed to rent from the state already much cheaper than what they'd have to pay for private land? So they basically want to lay claim on publicly owned land that they are already using under preferable conditions? You can't make this stuff up. They want to protest an extended prison sentence for two of the members who committed arson on federal property (supposedly set fire to wild land to cover up illegal hunting, but that's hearsay and irrelevant.) Instead of protesting or appealing like normal people do, these hillbillies have an extended case of white, male, Americuhn privilege and think forceful occupation is a reasonable form of protest. In the end, they're going to walk out with their heads down and their clothes soiled. While it might be a nice itch to scratch for the feds to storm in there, there's nothing to be gained by it. The federal government will just wait it out until they surrender from lack of food/water/everything, and then we can all collectively laugh at them and hope the other militia groups don't repeat the same mistake. EDIT: And they're not farmers or survivalists. It's a narrative that'll get thrown around to make them seem like blue collar Americans but they're truly neither. They had a case for sympathy before this, but no one wants to support people seizing a federal building. It's why the GOP candidates are tiptoeing around this one. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Immigration activists accused the Obama administration on Monday of spreading fear and anger after a weekend of raids that saw 121 immigrants apprehended across the country for deportation. Pro-migrant groups said the operation, which mostly targeted Central Americans fleeing violence who were refused US asylum, would drive undocumented immigrants deeper underground and stoke resentment towards a president often derided as the “deporter-in-chief”. But the Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, strongly defended the move in a statement: “As I have said repeatedly, our borders are not open to illegal migration; if you come here illegally, we will send you back consistent with our laws and values.” Johnson and other officials said those detained were mostly migrants who had crossed the southern border illegally after 1 May 2014 and were subject to final orders of removal from an immigration court. Raids in Georgia, North Carolina and Texas accounted for the majority of those now in custody, though Johnson characterized them as part of “concerted, nationwide enforcement operations”. While harsh and, at times, inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants has emerged on the 2016 presidential campaign trail, a senior administration official said the raids had “nothing to do with the caterwaulings of any member of the political class”. Instead, the official said, the action reflected a longstanding reaction to the increase in Central American families and unaccompanied children attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. Source | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12004 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 05 2016 09:59 Mohdoo wrote: What does everyone expect their sentence to be? This is looking like some serious prison time for everyone involved. Oddly enough, the same as the guys who set a fire, considering the incredibly broad definition of terrorism. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46466 Posts
Closing gun background check loopholes? Forcing people to actually go through proper protocols to obtain lethal weapons? Outrageous!!! lol. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
They set multiple fires dating back to 1999 and were warned several times to either stop or coordinate with the BLM before doing so because they were endangering people. They vowed never to work with the BLM, and almost got their 13 year old nephew killed starting more fires. Maybe the news should just frame this as these assholes endangering the lives of firefighters. Charging it under terrorism might be ridiculous, but it passed a grand jury and a regular jury to get there. The judge commuting their sentence clearly made a mistake, so even if the law is bad, they wouldn't have a strong case against it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46466 Posts
On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. Either way, they'll be martyred. Some idiot candidate will probably make a video with Eye Of The Tiger in the background or something too. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 05 2016 12:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Either way, they'll be martyred. Some idiot candidate will probably make a video with Eye Of The Tiger in the background or something too. The irony of people on the far right trying to be martyred is beautiful. Truly hilarious. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 05 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: The fact that these guys are guaranteed going to prison makes me think they may actually make a violent last stand. Their lives are basically over at this point. Either they go down fighting or spend their lives in prison. I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote: I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. Doesn't this kind of disregard laws pertaining to things like speeding and littering? | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On January 05 2016 13:12 cLutZ wrote: I've been trying to impress this upon people in this thread for quite a while...to little effect: If you aren't willing to kill someone over something, you don't actually think there should be a law about it. ....no one agrees with that line of thinking because it's stupid as hell. It's completely devoid of any rational or nuanced thought. You're just taking things to their extremes, its the worst case of black or white possible. Unless you're willing to KILL for something it shouldn't be against the law. Hmm, very intelligent and thought provoking. I think reading someone else's mail should be against the law. Makes sense, it's their property, its private correspondence meant for them, it could contain privileged and sensitive information, no logical person would say otherwise. If someone opens something in my mail am I willing to go and shoot them? Do I want the police to send the SWAT team to kill them? No, that's fucking retarded. Smart people see nuance, they're able to evaluate a situation and see shades of grey. They don't just instantly distill everything down to "IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO KILL....". Stealing should be illegal, not willing to shoot someone over the money in my wallet or the TV on my wall. Not every situation turns into kill or let it go unless you're a psychopath. This is the same bullshit line of argument that is "All taxation is theft by threat of death!". It's a joke made up by the feeble minded to persuade others with feeble minds. No one takes that seriously because its not serious. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On January 05 2016 16:47 Silvanel wrote: So the siege (in Oregon) is ongoing? Its hard to find some definitive answers. Well it's not really a siege according to Time.com: http://time.com/4167006/oregon-militia-standoff-ranchers-fbi/?xid=homepage | ||
| ||
