Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 06 2025 15:58 KT_Elwood wrote: People already starting to accept Musk back as "Real Life Tony Stark".
The attention span of the average voter seems to be...oh ice cream.
You have any sort of proof of that?
I'm sure you can find a few morons on reddit that post such stuff but these were allways the hardcore Elon fanboys that followed him to Trump and will follow him wherever he goes.
While it's not hard proof, Kat Abughazaleh was asked if she'd accept a campaign donation from Musk on CNN so the MSM is already trying to float that idea out there.
Let's be real, Musk could hand pick the next Democrat nominee by promising the party a billion dollars and every lib/Dem/ilk here would aggressively support Musk his pick winning.
No.
We would oppose the candidate in the primary and at every other possible opportunity. Then, in the general election, we would compare Musk's candidate to their opponent and vote for the lesser evil. Hopefully there would be a realistic third party candidate but if there wasn't one with any chance of success then it'd be down to voting between the two. I may vote Republican in that scenario, it depends.
It's baffling that after all this time and after having it explained to you over and over you still don't understand how voting in a simple plurality system works. At every point you pick your preferred of the choices you have because by refusing to pick you cede the decision to deplorables.
bolded - oh no, "opposed", you think Bernie dude knows what he is talking about?
around 43 minutes: "ostensibly there werent fair primary for the Dems" - "yes"
It is not disputed that Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally or that the government could potentially deport him.
Trump insisted he was not defying the Supreme Court.
“No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality,” he said. “I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ.”
rofl. masterful yet again. "the buck stops... wherever I point folks" -POTUS
He's already violating the Constitution, so he's not wrong about it being unclear if anyone can/will stop him.
I get the frustration, I really do. but I am actually rather hopeful for the first time since the election and all the horrible stuff that followed. the resistance is growing. and the courts will stop him. the alternative would be the end of the American experiment, and the end of their careers as judges.
I would like to think they rather like their position and standing. and court battles take time... social media broke our brains with instant barrage of 24/7 noise basically.
the courts will stop him? Has the WH stopped ignoring the courts while I wasn't looking?
again, it takes time. I would start worrying if the Supreme Court lets him have his way with some "new theory" or alternatively if they - collectively as in with the majority 5 to 4 or higher- rebuke his actions and he still feels the need to keep going.
then you should actually worry in my humble estimation. it would be quite the escalation that would put us into murky waters.
there is bending the law and breaking it, he is dangerously bending it as a politician so far. as a businessman he was exposed as a criminal... so the habit would be there for him to keep going the same direction.
could be wrong of course.
You point to courts saying 'don't' when I ask for for the WH just completely ignoring the courts.
Like how the courts, including the SC, ordered Kilmar Garcia returned. How is that working out.
On June 08 2025 01:19 oBlade wrote: Antifa and leftist protestors/extremists spent Friday obstructing federal officers in LA. After ICE/FBI/DEA executed warrants in LA, someone found out, a mob showed up from concerned citizens who left work as soon as they heard about it and encircled the federal building. One guy got run over by a gov't vehicle, but it's more like he was running backwards in front of it, fell down and it stopped. LAPD also came, not for any enforcement but to disperse the protest, because people were doing things like smashing city concrete to turn into pieces to hurl at LEO. Mayor of LA reiterated she and her people won't stand for federal law being enforced in her neck of the woods:
This is heating up as now the administration wants to cut off federal funding from California for not following federal law, and in return Newsom is floating the idea of withholding California tax revenues from the federal government, which is a speedrun to the Insurrection Act.
Can you possibly frame things in a more lopsided way? Almost every single ICE arrest that is taking place has normal ass civilians trying to stop or call attention to secret police who are masked and have no accountability who are kidnapping people without due process.
Do those normal ass civilians have the due process accountability to do all that? Absolutely not. Then why are they doing it? Because people like you don't know what the law is, think the existence of any federal law enforcement is the gestapo, and have all convinced each other that anything you don't like is against the law, which you don't know. The fact a federal agency didn't tell you personally all the details of their operation and why they're doing it before they did it is not a lack of due process or accountability.
So the administration has called up the National Guard to assist against these BS street insurrections.
On June 08 2025 10:42 Husyelt wrote: If Joe Biden was sending federal agents into random ass churches to arrest pedo priests and pastors and zip tying their children and sending them to foreign gulags without due process, would you be giving them the benefit of the doubt?
They are different things.
I support traffic cops stopping speeders. I don't support them stopping people for having a #FeelTheBern bumper sticker. Because they're different things.
Deporting US citizens convicted of heinous crimes like child molestation is never an outcome, even in the best case. (If you think the law should be changed to make it part of the way things are done, then you are in agreement with Trump who proposed the idea months ago.)
On the other hand, deporting people who lack legal status for immigration offenses is exactly what every government is supposed to do.
If Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas enforced federal immigration law to begin with he could still be president.
On June 06 2025 15:58 KT_Elwood wrote: People already starting to accept Musk back as "Real Life Tony Stark".
The attention span of the average voter seems to be...oh ice cream.
You have any sort of proof of that?
I'm sure you can find a few morons on reddit that post such stuff but these were allways the hardcore Elon fanboys that followed him to Trump and will follow him wherever he goes.
While it's not hard proof, Kat Abughazaleh was asked if she'd accept a campaign donation from Musk on CNN so the MSM is already trying to float that idea out there.
Let's be real, Musk could hand pick the next Democrat nominee by promising the party a billion dollars and every lib/Dem/ilk here would aggressively support Musk his pick winning.
No.
We would oppose the candidate in the primary and at every other possible opportunity. Then, in the general election, we would compare Musk's candidate to their opponent and vote for the lesser evil. Hopefully there would be a realistic third party candidate but if there wasn't one with any chance of success then it'd be down to voting between the two. I may vote Republican in that scenario, it depends.
It's baffling that after all this time and after having it explained to you over and over you still don't understand how voting in a simple plurality system works. At every point you pick your preferred of the choices you have because by refusing to pick you cede the decision to deplorables.
bolded - oh no, "opposed", you think Bernie dude knows what he is talking about?
It is not disputed that Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally or that the government could potentially deport him.
Trump insisted he was not defying the Supreme Court.
“No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality,” he said. “I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ.”
rofl. masterful yet again. "the buck stops... wherever I point folks" -POTUS
He's already violating the Constitution, so he's not wrong about it being unclear if anyone can/will stop him.
I get the frustration, I really do. but I am actually rather hopeful for the first time since the election and all the horrible stuff that followed. the resistance is growing. and the courts will stop him. the alternative would be the end of the American experiment, and the end of their careers as judges.
I would like to think they rather like their position and standing. and court battles take time... social media broke our brains with instant barrage of 24/7 noise basically.
the courts will stop him? Has the WH stopped ignoring the courts while I wasn't looking?
again, it takes time. I would start worrying if the Supreme Court lets him have his way with some "new theory" or alternatively if they - collectively as in with the majority 5 to 4 or higher- rebuke his actions and he still feels the need to keep going.
then you should actually worry in my humble estimation. it would be quite the escalation that would put us into murky waters.
there is bending the law and breaking it, he is dangerously bending it as a politician so far. as a businessman he was exposed as a criminal... so the habit would be there for him to keep going the same direction.
could be wrong of course.
You point to courts saying 'don't' when I ask for for the WH just completely ignoring the courts.
Like how the courts, including the SC, ordered Kilmar Garcia returned. How is that working out.
Them taking 3 months to get back a person they illegally deported to a foreign gulag is not the "see how the government is complying" gotya you think it is.
On June 08 2025 01:19 oBlade wrote: Antifa and leftist protestors/extremists spent Friday obstructing federal officers in LA. After ICE/FBI/DEA executed warrants in LA, someone found out, a mob showed up from concerned citizens who left work as soon as they heard about it and encircled the federal building. One guy got run over by a gov't vehicle, but it's more like he was running backwards in front of it, fell down and it stopped. LAPD also came, not for any enforcement but to disperse the protest, because people were doing things like smashing city concrete to turn into pieces to hurl at LEO. Mayor of LA reiterated she and her people won't stand for federal law being enforced in her neck of the woods:
This is heating up as now the administration wants to cut off federal funding from California for not following federal law, and in return Newsom is floating the idea of withholding California tax revenues from the federal government, which is a speedrun to the Insurrection Act.
Can you possibly frame things in a more lopsided way? Almost every single ICE arrest that is taking place has normal ass civilians trying to stop or call attention to secret police who are masked and have no accountability who are kidnapping people without due process.
Do those normal ass civilians have the due process accountability to do all that? Absolutely not. Then why are they doing it? Because people like you don't know what the law is, think the existence of any federal law enforcement is the gestapo, and have all convinced each other that anything you don't like is against the law, which you don't know. The fact a federal agency didn't tell you personally all the details of their operation and why they're doing it before they did it is not a lack of due process or accountability.
So the administration has called up the National Guard to assist against these BS street insurrections.
On June 08 2025 10:42 Husyelt wrote: If Joe Biden was sending federal agents into random ass churches to arrest pedo priests and pastors and zip tying their children and sending them to foreign gulags without due process, would you be giving them the benefit of the doubt?
They are different things.
I support traffic cops stopping speeders. I don't support them stopping people for having a #FeelTheBern bumper sticker. Because they're different things.
Deporting US citizens convicted of heinous crimes like child molestation is never an outcome, even in the best case. (If you think the law should be changed to make it part of the way things are done, then you are in agreement with Trump who proposed the idea months ago.)
On the other hand, deporting people who lack legal status for immigration offenses is exactly what every government is supposed to do.
If Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas enforced federal immigration law to begin with he could still be president.
funny how that works out with state's rights once the shoe is on the other foot. I distinctly remember the state of Texas basically making it their lifestyle. and other states once it fits them right.
so why is CA now the bad guy for defying an "overbearing, tyrannical and unconstitutional Federal government's order"?
looters/vandals should have due process of course. and face the music once convicted. and hopefully not shot first as this would really turn the pressure cooker to 11.
On June 06 2025 15:58 KT_Elwood wrote: People already starting to accept Musk back as "Real Life Tony Stark".
The attention span of the average voter seems to be...oh ice cream.
You have any sort of proof of that?
I'm sure you can find a few morons on reddit that post such stuff but these were allways the hardcore Elon fanboys that followed him to Trump and will follow him wherever he goes.
While it's not hard proof, Kat Abughazaleh was asked if she'd accept a campaign donation from Musk on CNN so the MSM is already trying to float that idea out there.
Let's be real, Musk could hand pick the next Democrat nominee by promising the party a billion dollars and every lib/Dem/ilk here would aggressively support Musk his pick winning.
No.
We would oppose the candidate in the primary and at every other possible opportunity. Then, in the general election, we would compare Musk's candidate to their opponent and vote for the lesser evil. Hopefully there would be a realistic third party candidate but if there wasn't one with any chance of success then it'd be down to voting between the two. I may vote Republican in that scenario, it depends.
It's baffling that after all this time and after having it explained to you over and over you still don't understand how voting in a simple plurality system works. At every point you pick your preferred of the choices you have because by refusing to pick you cede the decision to deplorables.
bolded - oh no, "opposed", you think Bernie dude knows what he is talking about?
It is not disputed that Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally or that the government could potentially deport him.
Trump insisted he was not defying the Supreme Court.
“No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality,” he said. “I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ.”
rofl. masterful yet again. "the buck stops... wherever I point folks" -POTUS
He's already violating the Constitution, so he's not wrong about it being unclear if anyone can/will stop him.
I get the frustration, I really do. but I am actually rather hopeful for the first time since the election and all the horrible stuff that followed. the resistance is growing. and the courts will stop him. the alternative would be the end of the American experiment, and the end of their careers as judges.
I would like to think they rather like their position and standing. and court battles take time... social media broke our brains with instant barrage of 24/7 noise basically.
the courts will stop him? Has the WH stopped ignoring the courts while I wasn't looking?
again, it takes time. I would start worrying if the Supreme Court lets him have his way with some "new theory" or alternatively if they - collectively as in with the majority 5 to 4 or higher- rebuke his actions and he still feels the need to keep going.
then you should actually worry in my humble estimation. it would be quite the escalation that would put us into murky waters.
there is bending the law and breaking it, he is dangerously bending it as a politician so far. as a businessman he was exposed as a criminal... so the habit would be there for him to keep going the same direction. I could be wrong of course.
You point to courts saying 'don't' when I ask for for the WH just completely ignoring the courts.
Like how the courts, including the SC, ordered Kilmar Garcia returned. How is that working out.
Them taking 3 months to get back a person they illegally deported to a foreign gulag is not the "see how the government is complying" gotya you think it is.
It’s quite unfortunate that the bloke is facing charges that seem somewhat credible, given he’s the most prominent symbol of these policies and how they’re being enacted.
By ‘somewhat credible’ I mean that it doesn’t appear complete bullshit, but I’ve only skimmed a few stories and that may not be the case for those more familiar.
For some, principles and faulty mechanisms are a cause for concern in and of themselves, for others they almost need an example of someone borderline saintly getting fucked over to consider something might be problematic.
I’m extremely skeptical he’d have been repatriated if no potential dirt was found, so it’s not something I’ll give credit for. If there was zero dirt, that would require this administration to admit he wasn’t this dangerous gang member that they claimed, and this lot much prefer doubling down as opposed to ever admitting mistakes.
If he is a criminal, they can get him back and go ‘see he was and look, we’re being fair’ and make a song and a dance of it
I mean they had months to do this. One very much gets the impression that if no plausible dirt was found, they’d have happily left him where he was.
On June 08 2025 01:19 oBlade wrote: Antifa and leftist protestors/extremists spent Friday obstructing federal officers in LA. After ICE/FBI/DEA executed warrants in LA, someone found out, a mob showed up from concerned citizens who left work as soon as they heard about it and encircled the federal building. One guy got run over by a gov't vehicle, but it's more like he was running backwards in front of it, fell down and it stopped. LAPD also came, not for any enforcement but to disperse the protest, because people were doing things like smashing city concrete to turn into pieces to hurl at LEO. Mayor of LA reiterated she and her people won't stand for federal law being enforced in her neck of the woods:
This is heating up as now the administration wants to cut off federal funding from California for not following federal law, and in return Newsom is floating the idea of withholding California tax revenues from the federal government, which is a speedrun to the Insurrection Act.
Can you possibly frame things in a more lopsided way? Almost every single ICE arrest that is taking place has normal ass civilians trying to stop or call attention to secret police who are masked and have no accountability who are kidnapping people without due process.
Do those normal ass civilians have the due process accountability to do all that? Absolutely not. Then why are they doing it? Because people like you don't know what the law is, think the existence of any federal law enforcement is the gestapo, and have all convinced each other that anything you don't like is against the law, which you don't know. The fact a federal agency didn't tell you personally all the details of their operation and why they're doing it before they did it is not a lack of due process or accountability.
So the administration has called up the National Guard to assist against these BS street insurrections.
On June 08 2025 10:42 Husyelt wrote: If Joe Biden was sending federal agents into random ass churches to arrest pedo priests and pastors and zip tying their children and sending them to foreign gulags without due process, would you be giving them the benefit of the doubt?
They are different things.
I support traffic cops stopping speeders. I don't support them stopping people for having a #FeelTheBern bumper sticker. Because they're different things.
Deporting US citizens convicted of heinous crimes like child molestation is never an outcome, even in the best case. (If you think the law should be changed to make it part of the way things are done, then you are in agreement with Trump who proposed the idea months ago.)
On the other hand, deporting people who lack legal status for immigration offenses is exactly what every government is supposed to do.
If Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas enforced federal immigration law to begin with he could still be president.
funny how that works out with state's rights once the shoe is on the other foot. I distinctly remember the state of Texas basically making it their lifestyle. and other states once it fits them right.
so why is CA now the bad guy for defying an "overbearing, tyrannical and unconstitutional Federal government's order"?
looters/vandals should have due process of course. and face the music once convicted. and hopefully not shot first as this would really turn the pressure cooker to 11.
No shoe has changed feet because no shoe existed to begin with because Cliven Bundy was not elected anything of anything, let alone mayor of the largest city in the largest state in the Union.
States' rights is every few decades Democrats think the federal government doesn't apply to them. Try to add one more state that recognizes blacks as people than doesn't? Democrats secede. Too much black labor competing with whites? Democrat labor launches the Red Summer of terror. Pass federal civil rights law? Have to send in the military to get Democrats to follow it. A police brutality court case goes the wrong way? Democrats burn down LA. Can't overrule federal supremacy on immigration because they lost an election? Democrats want to secede again. At a certain point you realize this pattern is a threat to society.
But that's neither here nor there. You mentioned Texas in passing. Just explain a bit please what Texas did that excuses California.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GsyyijpbgAAS89B.jpg)
