| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10522 Posts
On June 12 2025 13:01 KwarK wrote: If the door is the entrance to a building and they have no warrant then she's not obstructing them because they have no right to enter the building in the first place. The doors she is referring to are the car doors of the vehicle they were in so no concerns there | ||
|
oBlade
United States5598 Posts
On June 12 2025 01:24 Jankisa wrote: You spend inordinate amount of time defending Trump and his policies, including the ones that are "gray area" and that were never used in the way that he's using them because you want to see brown people suffer, because you are, just like him a racist and a bad person. I'm calling you a racist because you are a Tucker Carlson super-fan who spreads white replacement theory bullshit thinly veiled as "protecting sovereignty". Absolute slander. Just made-up. On June 12 2025 01:24 Jankisa wrote: Also, just as a side note on your most hilarious and obvious omissions or non answers, SF school board voting = attack on sovereignty and lack of answering if you believe Trump's 2020 lies. No, you asked me whether immigrants voted, thinking you knew the answer. You don't have any requisite background knowledge or awareness of the subject so it makes things hard. I gave you a genuine answer. I didn't say SF school board voting is destroying America. Your level of discussion, or comprehension, is thus: oBlade (Monday): Ice cream is delicious. oBlade (Tuesday): Laws should exist. Jankisa: oBlade is a white supremacist who thinks brown people are coming to steal all the ice cream because Tucker Carlson said so. Whatever planet you're on, share how you got there faster than Musk did. On June 12 2025 01:24 Jankisa wrote: You guys should start a circus! Cool, how much would you pay for something like that? On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: Posse Comitatus. This is getting framed by the usual suspects as a matter of LAW and ORDER vs Democrat anarchy. But that is not the question. Protesting is legal. Rioting is not and generally should be stopped and punished. The question is, 1) Do the protests and the violence that has broken out rise to the level of emergency that requires the use of federalizing the National Guard? Something that has not been done for sixty years. Knowing what happened last term when Democrats didn't get their way, yes. On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: 2) And is this an emergency that is so great that requires contravening the Posse Comitatus Act which bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement? (Is this not the nightmare scenario the 2a militia groups and preppers have been dreaming about since Waco, Texas?) The Posse Comitatus Act forbids you use the army for normal law enforcement. There are other statutory authorities that do exist which are what have been invoked. If something has exceptions, you aren't contravening it when you use an exception. On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: What evidence do you have? Up here, we had hockey riots that burned not a few cars, including police cars. Didn't need the military to break up. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/riots-erupt-in-vancouver-after-canucks-loss-1.993707 LA police are also capable of dealing with riots. They do happen in LA from time to time, I understand.  You normalize the rioting culture of the largest city in America because hockey fans also don't have self control. Addendum smiley face. If LA was capable they wouldn't have riots. On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: And let's add a few pieces to whether this rises to that level of emergency: 1) Trump (the sharpest of bulbs) has been calling everything and anything an emergency this administration so he can rule by fiat without Congress. Is everything an emergency all the time in America these days (fentanyl over the border of Canada, let's recall.) Wolf! Wolf! cried the boy. 2) He wants to use the military all the time on his political foes (last administration there were still conservatives that could check his authoritarian impulses). But insurrectionists on his behalf? Full pardons, deny the violence and weapons carried: just a big beautiful party. His every impulse is authoritarian use of the military as evidenced by holding a military parade for his birthday party. 3) He's the moron who gets his news from clip chimped social media posts- if you still believe the stolen election lies, then at least he demonstrated his idiocy (or else bold and unapologetic dishonesty) in plain view by showing clips from the Congo to accuse South Africa of white genocide. And thought the letters and numbers M S 13 were literally tattooed onto Kilmar's knuckles and wouldn't let up when the reporter desperately and cowardly tried to move on. 4) He's already lying saying the riots are causing a lot of death. Where? Which ones? Or is that a warning for when he sends in the troops? This is a lot of expanding the scope and rehashing every issue you ever had with Trump. He speaks 24/7, if you don't cite this particular quote of causing death can't say that I've heard it. Certainly "riots" cause death whether or not this one has yet. If he said someone died but nobody died, then he would be incorrect. I did a cursory search just now they found a body downtown, and I saw separately a LEO had been shot. But if you interpret that to mean he is going to use military forces to massacre people, your interpretation is wanting. You say flippantly, but Canadian border situation had been getting worse also. I haven't looked into it since the new administration. The fact that it's originally a smaller issue than the southern border doesn't mean that if the Canadian border got 2x worse than itself in the past, that it wouldn't be an issue because it's still not as bad as a bigger issue. On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: You are going to believe this Washington elite over local LA police who say they do not need the National Guard nor the military and in fact it's simply making matters worse according to them? LAPD chief is appointed by the mayor, who is a literal revolutionary who trained in Cuba. Yeah federal law enforcement and national guard make things worse, because by existing, they allow violent extremists to throw concrete at them. If they didn't exist, rioters throwing concrete at them and looting Apple stores might decrease. On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: No, this is not federalism in action. The entire point of federalism (or at least used to be) is that power is not centralized but especially in the US and Canada states/ provinces have a lot of reserved power to run their own affairs because the country is too vast for a central authority to accurately know how to govern from afar. Local matters resolved locally. Why is the federal government over-riding state authority when all you have is the clips of the same cars on fire cycled again and again? It's not a local matter. It stopped being local the second a federal agent was involved. Best case scenario, it's an issue of cooperation between state and federal government. Since California/LA are off the deep end, they're overridden. California doesn't get to reject federal law. Let me give you an example. California is so uncooperative that they don't let federal agents get criminal aliens out of the California state criminal justice system. What do I mean by this? In a normal state, ICE issues 2-day detainers when local/state authorities pick up someone that ICE wants or has on their radar. If the agency can afford it, and wants to be helpful, they hold the person. If they want to help, but can't afford it, I believe there should be more programs for the federal government to encourage and reimburse cooperation. But that's a tangent now. Because the federal government can't commandeer the state to enforce federal law, this is optional. Meaning you can be a jurisdiction who makes a policy that okay, if we have a "bad hombre" and ICE puts a detainer request on him, we'll cooperate. But if we just have for example someone who got cleared of everything, didn't do anything violent just a bunch of unpaid parking tickets or something, we won't hold him for no other reason than an ICE detainer about immigration status. Okay, whatever. California does not let federal agents into jails at all. The federal government does not want to have to do raids. They would rather safely transfer people from city and state custody to federal custody, when they are fucking convicted criminals with records who keep recidivating. They do not prefer to go into communities, which is unsafer for everyone, but nevertheless necessary and stipulated by execution of federal law. But they have no choice. To get people like this. This is the obstinance of sanctuary policies. On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: Kristi Noem under Biden said federalizing the National Guard against her authority would be a 'direct attack on state's rights' and were Biden to do so, 'oh, boy, we do have a war on our hands.' Firstly, I'm not Kristi Noem either. But yes, Biden was very close to creating a constitutional crisis in the border states and especially Texas also. The reason is this: The federal government's job is to secure the border and enforce immigration law. It's delegated specifically to them as their job and not the states'. Biden and Mayorkas left the border open. Texas mobilized state agents and National Guard to help secure their state, where the border is, against invasion. Biden sent federal agents to tear down fencing and unsecure it. Can you understand why the federal government using the National Guard to do their job is different than the federal government ordering the National Guard not to do the federal government's job when the states have to do the federal government's job themselves because the federal government treasonously abdicates their own oath to execute federal law? Enforcing the law is different than forcing a state to live with the fact that you are ignoring the law and they can't do anything about it themselves. Luckily, Biden didn't stoop to making that particular mistake. On June 12 2025 01:27 Falling wrote: I was firmly against the Emergency Act being used against the Trucker protest as I believed that was government over-reach. This is a hundred times worse. It's nice to confirm (or be reminded) that you, oBlade, are not a conservative as I don't see how any principled conservative could support this. But what are you? Canada and the US are different. Whether the Emergency Act applies or not to truckers sitting around on the street doing nothing (except were they blaring horns? I don't remember) is a different question than whether the US federal government can secure its own agents against people who interfere with them, attack them, block them, and siege their buildings. That is not protest. You let me know when a leftist union camps out somewhere peacefully to express dissatisfaction like Canadian truckers and Blumpf sends the marines to waste them all. | ||
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 07:59 Introvert wrote: I told you, the executive already had the tools he needed, given to him by the legislature, under already existing laws. The point of bringing the legislature into it again was for the exact purpose of making a mess, not fixing the problem. Things having no precedent are not illegal on that basis. I assume ICE is wearing masks to avoid doxxing. "Disappearing" people is primarily just another way to say "arrest" or "detain" things they are allowed to do. I'm already on record against deporting people to where they shouldn't go (although the government is not REQUIRED to deport people to their home country). Again it seems to be you don't want any enforcement at all. In LA, ICE got a warrant and executed on it. There was nothing underhanded in the raid so far as I'm aware. You are being (purposefully?) unclear here, I'm still left trying to figure out exactly what it is you are for or what you are at least ok with. While under some administrations it happens more or less than others, things like workplace raids are not illegal or unexpected. Plenty of cases have come to light proving that ICE has arrested and detained legal citizens. Will you accept that you're wrong? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/tracking-us-citizens-children-detained-deported-ice-trump-updates.html | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 09:46 BlackJack wrote: ICE arrests two undocumented migrants for being in the country without authorization and a 3rd person who obstructed them during the arrests. Why is this newsworthy? Law enforcement such as ICE can't lawfully enter private property without an official warrant signed by a judge unless the owner allows entry free from coercion. "This amendment serves as a fundamental safeguard of an individual’s privacy and personal security. It ensures that law enforcement officers cannot intrude into a person’s private property without a valid reason and a warrant issued by a judge. The Fourth Amendment aims to strike a balance between protecting citizens’ rights and allowing law enforcement to fulfill their duties." https://esquireexplain.com/can-police-enter-private-property-without-permission/ | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10522 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:11 Magic Powers wrote: Law enforcement such as ICE can't lawfully enter private property without an official warrant signed by a judge unless the owner allows entry free from coercion. "This amendment serves as a fundamental safeguard of an individual’s privacy and personal security. It ensures that law enforcement officers cannot intrude into a person’s private property without a valid reason and a warrant issued by a judge. The Fourth Amendment aims to strike a balance between protecting citizens’ rights and allowing law enforcement to fulfill their duties." https://esquireexplain.com/can-police-enter-private-property-without-permission/ No worries, mate. The arrest happened in public. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 13:24 BlackJack wrote: The doors she is referring to are the car doors of the vehicle they were in so no concerns there A car that is owned privately is considered private property in America and thus off-limits for law enforcement without a legal warrant. No worries, mate. The arrest happened in public. No worries, mate. You clearly don't know what constitutes "private property". | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10522 Posts
On June 12 2025 14:59 Magic Powers wrote: Plenty of cases have come to light proving that ICE has arrested and detained legal citizens. Will you accept that you're wrong? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/tracking-us-citizens-children-detained-deported-ice-trump-updates.html Context I've provided earlier in this thread from this NPR article in 2011 A record 396,000 people were deported from the country during the federal fiscal year that just ended. Some were caught in raids, while others were detained by ICE after being arrested by local police. Stevens looked at about 8,000 cases in just two immigration detention facilities. She found that about 1 percent of the time, people were eventually let go because they were U.S. citizens. However, that meant the citizens were held between one week and four years in detention. Trump's numbers are nothing remarkable in terms of deportations or detention of legal U.S. citizens. In fact most estimates based on current trajectories indicate he won't even top Biden's last year in office. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:21 BlackJack wrote: Context I've provided earlier in this thread from this NPR article in 2011 Trump's numbers are nothing remarkable in terms of deportations or detention of legal U.S. citizens. In fact most estimates based on current trajectories indicate he won't even top Biden's last year in office. What exactly is your argument? I don't understand what you're saying. My point: Q: Has ICE committed crimes? A: Yes Your counter: ? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10522 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:17 Magic Powers wrote: A car that is owned privately is considered private property in America and thus off-limits for law enforcement without a legal warrant. No worries, mate. You clearly don't know what constitutes "private property". Ok my clothes are private property too. I'm off-limits for law enforcement unless I'm naked. Like seriously, you think you can run onto a public street and interfere with police that have a car pulled over and you think it's not obstruction because the car is private property? Like why do we have to go nine rounds on the most ridiculous things? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:28 BlackJack wrote: Ok my clothes are private property too. I'm off-limits for law enforcement unless I'm naked. Like seriously, you think you can run onto a public street and interfere with police that have a car pulled over and you think it's not obstruction because the car is private property? Like why do we have to go nine rounds on the most ridiculous things? Ok we're done here. If you want to be a baby, be a baby to someone else. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4786 Posts
On June 12 2025 10:01 Sermokala wrote: The problem with GH's "solutions", when he finally comes up to discuss them, end up being "yeah just burn the whole thing down and start from scratch" + Show Spoiler + and the conversation never gets past how to actually reform or actually make the system better. Hes not interested in the very real problems with things like policeing that makes it a job that ruins good people and enables bad people, he just wants to sit on his ivory tower and never get the mud of reality on his hands. Do you think if he gets a text to join a flash protest to an ICE raid, and finds that the hells angels are there to protest the raid as well, what will GH do? Hes not interested in learning about his local politics enough to know that slavery was on the ballot, and therefore couldn't fight for the issue. I went around my community to make sure the lottery take the state government gets is constitutionally mandated to go to nature initiatives, and my community is hella conservative. Its a very real issue of leftism in America, the midwest actually got things done, organized well, won elections, and fought for reforms, only to get shit on by coastal leftists who were more than willing to burn everything down than compromise on their principles once. Good socialism is when you have a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority running the economic development of your state. Its when you give free education on two year colleges. It's giving free health insurance to the poorest. Have you heard GH mention any of these things? The actual actual problem is that sometimes burning it all down is the correct way forward because your entire system is so entangled and murky and procedural (proceduralism is power; drown them in paperwork; another tool for waging the class war) But doing that takes on a workload that most aren't willing to wade into. The lives are comfortable enough now, who cares about the actual Kafkaesk, AI, drone policing, megastructure ultramarine bureaucratic nightmare our childrens children will have to live in? Things are only going to get worse now that people don't wan't to make children anymore and the burden on the younger generations will only increase. They're our most precious assets yet we treat them like disposable scum because they'll have to take care of us??? Because the 55+ people have all the knowledge and wisdom and capital see! How will we innovate? I'm predicting a mandatory 2 year elderly care service for young adults in a year or 20 because we haven't done anythint to address the isssue structurally. So, yeah, burn it down could be a good thing sometimes. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10522 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:37 Magic Powers wrote: Ok we're done here. If you want to be a baby, be a baby to someone else. Pretty on brand for you. Smugly telling me "you must no know what constitutes private property" because you foolishly believe that police can't arrest someone in a car without a warrant and when I point on how ridiculous that is you pretend to throw a tantrum so you can bow out without having to defend your foolish belief. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:42 BlackJack wrote: Pretty on brand for you. Smugly telling me "you must no know what constitutes private property" because you foolishly believe that police can't arrest someone in a car without a warrant and when I point on how ridiculous that is you pretend to throw a tantrum so you can bow out without having to defend your foolish belief. Look it up. Privately owned cars are private property. They're called "effects". | ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2394 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17997 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:46 Magic Powers wrote: Look it up. Privately owned cars are private property. They're called "effects". Maybe stop digging? You're wrong. Own it. ICE are doing plenty wrong even if they didn't do this thing wrong. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10522 Posts
On June 12 2025 15:56 Turbovolver wrote: Just take off your shirt and stand on top of it, now you are "on private property" and you cannot be touched XD You say that jokingly but I have little doubt that's an argument he would make if it suited him. + Show Spoiler + I don't know what pronouns MP uses but I'm opting to go with he/him here over the more ambiguous they/them so nobody thinks I'm speaking in generalizations about other people in the thread. MP has some pretty unique ways of seeing things that doesn't apply to anyone else here so I wouldn't want anyone else to think "them" refers to them. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 16:09 Acrofales wrote: Maybe stop digging? You're wrong. Own it. ICE are doing plenty wrong even if they didn't do this thing wrong. Prove that I'm wrong. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2558 Posts
This argument has gone off the rails, though. If "You're wrong" is proving that a car isn't private property, it won't happen. It's a stupid battle to fight, and I hope to god no one bothers. Nobody should be arguing whether or not police can enter your T-shirt, it's a fucking dumb tangent that doesn't mean anything. Yes police can enter cars if they feel they can prove probable cause etc. That could be irrelevant for this argument because we're talking about ICE not 'the police', which may well have different guidelines that do not include 'probable cause'. It seems reasonable to consider it obstruction of justice if someone physically blocks the doorway to a home to prevent police from entering and arresting someone who just obviously committed a crime. That seems incredibly straightforward. If you want to make the case that it wasn't what happened and ICE is at fault in this scenario, don't let BJ pull you off track into this odd tangent of police and cars. Especially don't let BJ pull you off track and then double down on this sidetrack shouting "FIGHT ME BRO". Stick with ICE and pregnant people in this specific scenario. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4115 Posts
On June 12 2025 16:39 Fleetfeet wrote: This argument has gone off the rails, though. If "You're wrong" is proving that a car isn't private property, it won't happen. That's not what at's stake though - We're on the tail end of a thread that started from Kwark claiming it isn't obstruction if there isn't a warrant, and we're currently at "can police enter cars" which is a ridiculous place to be. Yes police can enter cars if they can prove probable cause etc. That could be irrelevant for this argument because we're talking about ICE not 'the police', which may well have different guidelines that do not include 'probable cause'. It seems reasonable to consider it obstruction of justice if someone physically blocks the doorway to a home to prevent police from entering and arresting someone who just obviously committed a crime. That seems incredibly straightforward. If you want to make the case that it wasn't what happened and ICE is at fault in this scenario, don't let BJ pull you off track into this odd tangent of police and cars. Stick with ICE and pregnant people in this specific scenario. I disagree, I think It's time to make it as difficult as possible for all right-wingers at every step. Every single thing they say must be scrutinized to death, and it's no longer time for leniency. They've crossed too many lines so it's time that they face the consequences of their actions. One consequence must be that they can't say a single sentence unless they've proven it 100 times over. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2558 Posts
On June 12 2025 16:43 Magic Powers wrote: I disagree, I think It's time to make it as difficult as possible for all right-wingers at every step. Every single thing they say must be scrutinized to death, and it's no longer time for leniency. They've crossed too many lines so it's time that they face the consequences of their actions. One consequence must be that they can't say a single sentence unless they've proven it 100 times over. People will lose patience with you and ignore you a million times sooner than they'll ignore your opponents. You can watch that happen in real time here, if you'd like. Just continue as you are. | ||
| ||
|
|
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
