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.
It feels like this administration would rather get the wheels moving to repatriate someone who may actually have been a habitual criminal, than someone who appeared not to be just because of optics and political expediency.
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.
On June 08 2025 19:09 KT_Elwood wrote: Trump pardoned people beating real cops to death on jan6.
How is this "law and order"?
He's suppressing his political enemies, so he wants to do it. Doesn't mean its illegal, and it doesn't specifically make it wrong, but if you find a way to arrest a bunch of enemies then you do it, if you're Trump. There's disorder on the streets, so the 'law and order' justification works, even if its not the primary motivator.
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.
I am not excusing anything, you are gravely mistaken. just observing and hoping by posting about it people start thinking more and throwing less talking points at each other. that gets really old really fast if you have seen quite a lot of them... as they tend to be also very stubborn things that stick around.
now I had no idea about Red Summer - knew however about the Tulsa massacre which seems very related. and something borne out of the age old dance politicians dance when they play one class/race of people against one other.
but riddle me this - which party do you think about 100 years later - is the party of a Red Summer like event?
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.
I am not excusing anything, you are gravely mistaken. just observing and hoping by posting about it people start thinking more and throwing less talking points at each other. that gets really old really fast if you have seen quite a lot of them... as they tend to be also very stubborn things that stick around.
That's the same dispute.
When Biden was in charge, he and Mayorkas refused to enforce immigration law. Despite taking oaths to same. Nevertheless, Texas, who said hey we are a border state facing an actual invasion, built their own fencing, mobilized the Guard themselves, and even passed their own law specifically criminalizing illegal entry to Texas at the state level.
Here is roughly what is happening in a simple analogy: You have a room in a house that elects a Democratic landlord. There is a broken water pipe, and the housing contract says it's the landlord's job to fix it. The landlord increases the water pressure in the pipe, making the national basement more flooded. The landlord then punishes and sues people who try to fix the pipe themselves, reduce the water pressure, or pump water out of their room. His reasoning is if the contract says it's his job to fix it, nobody else is allowed to fix it if he intentionally fucks it up. He is that spoiled and the broken water pipe is that important to him.
You elect a new landlord and the old landlord, who is now sitting and pouting in one of the largest most flooded rooms, throws pieces of concrete at the repairmen you hired.
This is bullshit. The roles are not comparable at all. "Isn't wanting to enforce the law when Democrats are in charge but completely ignore it just the same as trying to stop Republicans from enforcing the law when they're in charge?"
The dispute is not one of the limits of federalism and hypocritical invocation of states' rights. It's one of children who belong nowhere near political office. They have created a situation so subversive, that when they're in power, they refuse to do the job that is specifically theirs, even though the states need them to do that job because it's part of the agreement of states being part of the country. There is no way to force them to do the job when they're in power. There is no mechanism. It doesn't exist. It's lawlessness until you elect someone else. Yet when you do elect someone else, and the previous aren't in power anymore, they see people doing the job they refused to do as a fascist departure from norms, and resist it just as ardently as they did when they were the ones who were supposed to do it.
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.
I am not excusing anything, you are gravely mistaken. just observing and hoping by posting about it people start thinking more and throwing less talking points at each other. that gets really old really fast if you have seen quite a lot of them... as they tend to be also very stubborn things that stick around.
That's the same dispute.
When Biden was in charge, he and Mayorkas refused to enforce immigration law. Despite taking oaths to same. Nevertheless, Texas, who said hey we are a border state facing an actual invasion, built their own fencing, mobilized the Guard themselves, and even passed their own law specifically criminalizing illegal entry to Texas at the state level.
Here is roughly what is happening in a simple analogy: You have a room in a house that elects a Democratic landlord. There is a broken water pipe, and the housing contract says it's the landlord's job to fix it. The landlord increases the water pressure in the pipe, making the national basement more flooded. The landlord then punishes and sues people who try to fix the pipe themselves, reduce the water pressure, or pump water out of their room. His reasoning is if the contract says it's his job to fix it, nobody else is allowed to fix it if he intentionally fucks it up. He is that spoiled and the broken water pipe is that important to him.
You elect a new landlord and the old landlord, who is now sitting and pouting in one of the largest most flooded rooms, throws pieces of concrete at the repairmen you hired.
This is bullshit. The roles are not comparable at all. "Isn't wanting to enforce the law when Democrats are in charge but completely ignore it just the same as trying to stop Republicans from enforcing the law when they're in charge?"
The dispute is not one of the limits of federalism and hypocritical invocation of states' rights. It's one of children who belong nowhere near political office. They have created a situation so subversive, that when they're in power, they refuse to do the job that is specifically theirs, even though the states need them to do that job because it's part of the agreement of states being part of the country. There is no way to force them to do the job when they're in power. There is no mechanism. It doesn't exist. It's lawlessness until you elect someone else. Yet when you do elect someone else, and the previous aren't in power anymore, they see people doing the job they refused to do as a fascist departure from norms, and resist it just as ardently as they did when they were the ones who were supposed to do it.
_they_ are solely Democrats and Republicans are blameless in this?
I see the political angle and play sure. yet people do have big problems with ICE doing military style raids apparently. and there is a lot of leeway with asylum laws - not everything is black and white.
ordinary people not wanting their community members deported... in a fashion that is clearly escalatory and foreshadows worse things to come.
//edit: also what is this state of lawlessness? when laws by and large are upheld, most people behave and relatively high trust has been achieved... by definition you do not have lawlessness. you might have problem regarding certain areas sure - but lawlessness is something wholly different.
unless you are an "you don't have borders you don't have a country" kinda guy. as decreed by POTUS stable genius.
"Military style" is inconvenient because it's... harder for violent mobs to start a war with and win against. Think they'd be better received if they went to detain people using thoughts and prayers instead?
How about a more practical question, do you think the federal government would need to be more or less militarized if it had the cooperation of state and local governments working together instead of making sanctuary cities?
On June 08 2025 21:44 oBlade wrote: "Military style" is inconvenient because it's... harder for violent mobs to start a war with and win against. Think they'd be better received if they went to detain people using thoughts and prayers instead?
How about a more practical question, do you think the federal government would need to be more or less militarized if it had the cooperation of state and local governments working together instead of making sanctuary cities?
thoughts and prayers usually is an afterthought. for when militarized police fail to do their jobs or when politicians fail to make the 2nd amendment compatible with children finding a safe environment for learning.
I wonder what came first, the "violent mob" or ICE?
war. cute. no wonder the US keeps losing wars since Vietnam if you think that is a war.
maybe try different sources, broaden your perspective. you know freedom of speech and expression. dip into the other side's views for a change. use it as long as you still have it, and the press that is reporting on it. if the state's crackdown won't finish it market forces will eventually.
and the last thing, it is not for me to decide really. let's just say we have just about the same problems in the EU but it plays out very differently in some ways, in others eerily similar.
what would help of course is finding common ground first from POTUS down. and language - to start - that is free from threats and insults and cheap shots.
On June 08 2025 21:44 oBlade wrote: "Military style" is inconvenient because it's... harder for violent mobs to start a war with and win against. Think they'd be better received if they went to detain people using thoughts and prayers instead?
How about a more practical question, do you think the federal government would need to be more or less militarized if it had the cooperation of state and local governments working together instead of making sanctuary cities?
thoughts and prayers usually is an afterthought. for when militarized police fail to do their jobs or when politicians fail to make the 2nd amendment compatible with children finding a safe environment for learning.
I wonder what came first, the "violent mob" or ICE?
war. cute. no wonder the US keeps losing wars since Vietnam if you think that is a war.
maybe try different sources, broaden your perspective. you know freedom of speech and expression. dip into the other side's views for a change. use it as long as you still have it, and the press that is reporting on it. if the state's crackdown won't finish it market forces will eventually.
and the last thing, it is not for me to decide really. let's just say we have just about the same problems in the EU but it plays out very differently in some ways, in others eerily similar.
what would help of course is finding common ground first from POTUS down. and language - to start - that is free from threats and insults and cheap shots.
maybe you spot the major bottleneck now.
I don't know what you're talking about.
You want federal law enforcement officers in my country not to carry scary equipment and drive scary vehicles because it makes criminals feel nervous. They have that because people have attacked and will attack them. I want shit for brains extremists to stop attacking them, and elected rubes to stop enabling that behavior and stop impeding them. Maybe a result of that would be less scary equipment. Before that, they are not going to adopt a "style" that makes them vulnerable for no reason. The law doesn't say "you can execute warrants and detain people, but you can't look scary while doing it, because leftists need to be able to resist you more easily if they really think you're doing something poopy." For good reason.
As for which came first. ICE is a government organization under DHS that used to be part of INS. INS goes back to before the INA of 1952 that most current federal immigration law revolves around. The DHS specifically came out of Bush reorganizing/modernizing federal departments for the war on terror/age of terror, that's where ICE came from.
Revolutionary leftists goes back to the Weather Underground in the 60s, and before that the 30s and 40s which was the only time in history they were actually justified in calling themselves antifascists. Even before the US entrance into WW2 people were in tune with global political shifts and US leftists used the Spanish Civil War the way people use Ukraine/Russia now to roleplay a part in a historic struggle.
In other words, the violent mob came first, ICE came second, and only the latter has any statutory justification for its existence.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GsyyijpbgAAS89B.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106828932-1611356814485-sabol.jpg?v=1611357086&w=1920&h=1080)
![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/01/13/video/11vid-cvr/11vid-cvr-superJumbo-v2.png?quality=75&auto=webp)
