|
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 |
On January 11 2026 08:30 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 08:21 Acrofales wrote:On January 11 2026 08:08 Vivax wrote:On January 11 2026 05:55 Acrofales wrote:
Kwark said what needed to be said about 3 pages back. You don't argue with the secret police. And everything oBlade and Introvert have said so far just reinforces the idea that ICE definitely is the secret police, and that their actions need no justification because by merit of them doing them they were the right actions. Surely there‘s other secret police that existed before ICE, even in other countries. Can‘t argue with any of them. That‘s why they‘re secret. You can argue with ICE because they‘re not secret, at least while clad in teflon. Your English must be failing you. The secret police aren't secret at all. The Gestapo had officers in uniforms. Stasi had officers in uniforms. The politic-social brigade (Francoist Spain) had officers in uniform. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has officers in uniform. The fact that they are called secret police doesn't mean they're actually secret. It refers to the fact that they are a supra-legal entity whose methods are above the law (and thus "secret"). I don't think I'd try arguing with any of them. Yeah, because in this day and age you‘d see them standing around in uniforms and not behind some monitor. Must be an English issue, my bad.
You think ICE is acting like a regular by-the-books law enforcement agency? Or maybe even the shockingly awful US police doesn't go around wearing ski masks, refusing to identify themselves, and summarily executing people who try to get away from them in a car, while the regime's sycophants gaslight everyone about how everything they do is totally justified (because illegal immigrants).
|
On January 11 2026 08:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 08:30 Vivax wrote:On January 11 2026 08:21 Acrofales wrote:On January 11 2026 08:08 Vivax wrote:On January 11 2026 05:55 Acrofales wrote:
Kwark said what needed to be said about 3 pages back. You don't argue with the secret police. And everything oBlade and Introvert have said so far just reinforces the idea that ICE definitely is the secret police, and that their actions need no justification because by merit of them doing them they were the right actions. Surely there‘s other secret police that existed before ICE, even in other countries. Can‘t argue with any of them. That‘s why they‘re secret. You can argue with ICE because they‘re not secret, at least while clad in teflon. Your English must be failing you. The secret police aren't secret at all. The Gestapo had officers in uniforms. Stasi had officers in uniforms. The politic-social brigade (Francoist Spain) had officers in uniform. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has officers in uniform. The fact that they are called secret police doesn't mean they're actually secret. It refers to the fact that they are a supra-legal entity whose methods are above the law (and thus "secret"). I don't think I'd try arguing with any of them. Yeah, because in this day and age you‘d see them standing around in uniforms and not behind some monitor. Must be an English issue, my bad. You think ICE is acting like a regular by-the-books law enforcement agency? Or maybe even the shockingly awful US police doesn't go around wearing ski masks, refusing to identify themselves, and summarily executing people who try to get away from them in a car, while the regime's sycophants gaslight everyone about how everything they do is totally justified (because illegal immigrants).
No, I think they‘re acting like a reactionary militia. The secret police was already present way before their time.
What even is left of ‚by-the-books‘? It‘s a pile of rubble.
|
Northern Ireland22211 Posts
So apparently if 'law enforcement' in the USA want to kill someone, they can just walk in front of their car and execute the driver in 'self defence'?
|
Might be problematic that Trump believes the only limit to his power is his own morality/imagination.
“Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump told the The New York Times on Wednesday night when asked if there were any limits on his international power.
“I don’t need international law...”
thehill.com
|
On January 11 2026 05:58 KwarK wrote:
In any other country she would still be alive.
For example the Trucker convoy (trucker tantrum), they plugged up the capital for a month. And they did far worse. Zero fatalities, in fact no one was hurt. And yet the MAGA crazies constantly bring it up as how Canada is less "free" than the US.
The double think is wacko. Never once did I think, boy I wish someone would shoot a trucker. And had that happened all these people who have been told it was cool because it was there side would be up in arms. I mean they were and are up in arms for things 1000x less harsh.
|
On January 11 2026 01:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 00:43 Sermokala wrote:I assume introvert has been lied to and told the footage that was released was body cam footage. No that was the guys phone. He fumbled it as he got his gun out and started shooting. This is a known problem with border patrol officers where they will walk in front of a car in order to justify shooting the driver. the footage clearly shows that he saw the driver turning the wheel away from him, and then him getting out of the way. At no point does he identify himself as a federal agent or anyone identify themselves as one. How do I know this has been a recurring issue? they changed the use of force guidelines back in 2014 because they noticed so many were doing this to murder people. www.npr.orgShe was not the first to be murdered like this, she won't be the last. Not sure why I bother with you sometimes. I didn't say it was body cam footage. I wasn't "lied to," i can literally *watch* it. The officer is circling from one side of the car to the other, albeit slowly. She backs up like she's about to do a 3 pnt turn, and then, and here's the kicker, she puts it in drive and steps on the accelerator while he's still in front of her. That csn be illegal too btw, a car can be a weapon. And she hits him. If he didn't shoot who knows what happens. People are only doing this dumb "he was barely hurt" routine *because* she was stopped. People can disagree but, the videos seem to show, this woman knew she was interfering with federal law enforcement, if she was actually "trained" then she knew that was a crime for which ICE agents could arrest her. When they told her to get out of the car and one grabbed her door, her partner told her to "drive baby drive" and she foolishly did so with people surrounding her car. In the split second the officer had to decide what to do he did the only thing he could. It’s very sad, like I said. But if she didn't try to leave then she might be facing federal charges (which imo would have been dropped or she would have had a hung jury, juries in blue jurisdictions have gone nuts) and she'd be alive. Instead, she wanted to mess around with ICE agents (and, presumably in her mind, fascists) and yet thought that it was going to work out for her. The circumstances before and immediately leading to her death depend very heavily on the actions she took. But because she's protesting Nazis that's not allowed to be acknowledged except insofar as to say that that is just what happens when dealing with thug fascists. I reiterate my point from my previous posts. Don't drive into people, especially if those people have guns.
She turned her wheel away from the guy with a gun who hadn't identified himself. The guy saw this happen, he got out of the way of the car as she was leaving. He chose to shoot her in the face after placing himself in front of her car and didn't identify himself. To the point where when he fired he wasn't in front of her anymore, he was to the side of the car.
He wasn't hurt, she wasn't stoped as her car uncontrolled beacuse shot in face crashed into another vehicle. His training directly goes against what he did beacuse they found that their agents was doing that in order to justify killing people. He called her a fucking bitch right after shooting her twice in the face. No one went over to investigate the crash or the shooting victum from the agents until the killer stumbled over and said that someone should call 911.
Yes if she was charged for a federal crime beacuse a fed decided to block traffic and sneak around a vehicle in order to justify a shooting they should have dropped the charges.
The killer placed himself in the position, and he made the actions that caused the loss of life. He didn't identify himself so he shouldn't be given any protections acording to his office. He worked against policy beacuse the organization he worked for knew that the thing he was doing was leading to people getting shot for no reason.
|
On January 11 2026 08:52 ahswtini wrote:
So apparently if 'law enforcement' in the USA want to kill someone, they can just walk in front of their car and execute the driver in 'self defence'?
You don't even have to be in law enforcement as these guys just randomly got out of a truck and approched her car. Anyone with guns can kill whoever they want by surrounding someone and claiming self defence when they try to leave.
|
On January 11 2026 05:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 03:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 11 2026 02:35 Uldridge wrote:
Woman barely brushed him.
Introvert normalizing that fleeing is probable cause for being shot in the face. This is where we're at. Keep at it dude, maybe it'll start to sink in when it happens on your street. But who knows at this point. Even worse: Woman barely brushed him after he disregarded protocol and walked in front of a turned-on/obviously-about-to-be-driven vehicle while his buddy tried to break in. Lesson: If you are the pilot of an about-to-be-driven vehicle and a federal agent or other human is in front of the vehicle, maybe reconsider the choice to drive towards/into said human. Especially if they're federal agents telling you to get out of the vehicle. Great way to deescalate is take the keys out of the ignition.
You need to rewatch the video if you think the wheels were turning "into said human" (they were not). Furthermore, it's absolutely not a fair "lesson" to murder people who are driving away from deputized MAGA, regardless of MAGA's jobs.
|
United States43431 Posts
On January 11 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Might be problematic that Trump believes the only limit to his power is his own morality/imagination. Show nested quote +“Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump told the The New York Times on Wednesday night when asked if there were any limits on his international power.
“I don’t need international law...” thehill.com
Again, we all know what needs to be done.
|
On January 11 2026 11:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Might be problematic that Trump believes the only limit to his power is his own morality/imagination. “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump told the The New York Times on Wednesday night when asked if there were any limits on his international power.
“I don’t need international law...” thehill.com Again, we all know what needs to be done.
Are you suggesting Trump needs to be murdered? Pretty crazy for anyone to support the idea of murder if that’s what you’re trying to say without outright saying it. It’s especially crazy because you’re somehow a mod and you’re suggesting it
|
Kwark obviously means Trump needs to be visited by 3 ghosts during the night.
I do think it’s funny how Kwark constantly accuses GH of being a revolutionary cosplayer, despite being arguably the most “firebomb a Walmart” poster on this forum.
|
United States43431 Posts
You've completely missed the mark. I’m not a revolutionary and I don't think of myself as one. This isn’t my country. I’m not throwing myself or my family in the fire to save this shithole. Someone who thinks America is worth saving can go ahead and die for it.
There are two main differences between me and GH.
1. I am substantially more disillusioned with the state of America and the rot at its core. GH seems to think if we all join his facebook group we can somehow turn the ship around. I think the medicine tastes a little spicier.
2. I don’t insist that my inaction somehow makes me morally superior to the inaction of others on a computer game forum. I don’t tell others that they’re bad people because they’re somehow morally complicit whereas I am a moral superhuman because I identify as a literal abolitionist (I tell GH that, but only GH). Identifying as a revolutionary doesn’t make you one.
edit: That said, I do think there's an awful lot to be said for your idea of 3 spectres visiting the fascists at their home in the middle of the night. You're onto a winner there. If you wish to have a conversation with the brownshirts about their abuses of power you can't show up unarmed it at their place of work when they're surrounded by all their friends and they all have guns.
The late Ms. Good was foolish, she bought into the idea of American exceptionalism and bet her life on it. She correctly recognized that these were brownshirts but she thought that they couldn't do what they always do all around the world. Not here. Not in America. They couldn't just murder her and have state media declare that she was a dangerous terrorist because this is America and that's not what happens here. In America you can approach the secret police armed with only your rights.
|
On January 11 2026 09:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 08:52 ahswtini wrote:
So apparently if 'law enforcement' in the USA want to kill someone, they can just walk in front of their car and execute the driver in 'self defence'? You don't even have to be in law enforcement as these guys just randomly got out of a truck and approched her car. Anyone with guns can kill whoever they want by surrounding someone and claiming self defence when they try to leave.
Guys randomly got out of a truck lol. Pretty cruel of this woman to leave her wife with the random guys who got out of a truck and just drive away as she videos it.
No, anyone with guns cannot. Why can the police pull me out of a car and put me in handcuffs, but if I try to do the same to them I get tazed and shot?
If someone is armed next to my car and (is about to) try to get me out of it or tell me to get out, this is carjacking, and what I can do depends on the state. In Florida I can flatten him to protect myself. In states, usually Democrat, where castle doctrine doesn't apply to cars, and with prosecutors who go after normal citizens while being lenient on criminals with judges who let them out constantly, you may face more headaches.
If the "someone" are the police and you try to flatten them, whether right or left or no wing, you are rolling the dice to become a sovereign citizen of the afterlife.
On January 11 2026 09:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 05:09 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2026 03:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 11 2026 02:35 Uldridge wrote:
Woman barely brushed him.
Introvert normalizing that fleeing is probable cause for being shot in the face. This is where we're at. Keep at it dude, maybe it'll start to sink in when it happens on your street. But who knows at this point. Even worse: Woman barely brushed him after he disregarded protocol and walked in front of a turned-on/obviously-about-to-be-driven vehicle while his buddy tried to break in. Lesson: If you are the pilot of an about-to-be-driven vehicle and a federal agent or other human is in front of the vehicle, maybe reconsider the choice to drive towards/into said human. Especially if they're federal agents telling you to get out of the vehicle. Great way to deescalate is take the keys out of the ignition. You need to rewatch the video if you think the wheels were turning "into said human" (they were not).
The car was driving into him. Did the car touch him or not? You can run into someone while turning. These are not exclusive.
+ Show Spoiler +I think you're misreading something I said to someone else. Look at this. Notice as she backs up (that's why the dotted white line becomes visible), the officer's position in line with the pillar of the building is almost the same. Her act of backing up to the left, in order to drive wherever she intended to drive, did play a role in putting the officer right in front of her.
On January 11 2026 09:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Furthermore, it's absolutely not a fair "lesson" to murder people who are driving away from deputized MAGA, regardless of MAGA's jobs.
There is no "deputized MAGA." You know DHS predates MAGA, you know this man has been with DHS for almost 20 years. The problem in this case was not driving away from authorities, which is why no one else fired, the problem was driving through authorities.
If these were the gestapo Nazi secret police these resistance geniuses claim they were, they would be terrified and would never go near them or never be allowed to. It's pure LARPing. It's a communicable SNS disease.
There is such a thing as 1st amendment auditing but that's just observation and recording, not interfering. We can say whatever guides these organizations are publishing explaining the neat tricks they have learned to "resist" the federal government without any fear of repercussions might not be factually accurate. I hope that opens up liability to all the people who put her in that situation so they stop putting more people in similar ones.
|
Canada11384 Posts
|
I love how "The car was driving into him" so quickly changes to "Did the car touch him or not?" And if that goalpost-moving wasn't enough, there's the conveniently missing information that the car touched him partially because she was starting to drive and partially because he broke protocol and purposely walked in front of the vehicle.
And then there's that whole other piece of missing information that the car that clipped the attacker was moving at a speed of... what, 1 mph? The car was completely stopped, and the clipping of the attacker happened essentially at the moment the car's velocity increased from 0 because the attacker was right next to / right in front of the car as it started moving. It's not like the car was already rolling down a street and eventually barreled into someone. We can also clearly see that the shooting was retaliation for the woman trying to drive away, as opposed to self-defense or something reasonable, given when the gun was shot, where the shooter was located at the time, and the fact that the car and wheels were turned away from the shooter. The amount of harm done to the shooter is equivalent to someone backing out of a parking space and bumping me as I walk behind their car... and it would be insane to then murder the driver.
|
United States43431 Posts
On January 11 2026 12:58 oBlade wrote:
If these were the gestapo Nazi secret police these resistance geniuses claim they were, they would be terrified.
This is a very weird thing to say. Essentially the lack of fear proves that there was nothing to be afraid of.
Let's follow the logic.
1. If these protesters really believed that the secret police were murderers they wouldn't go near them for fear of getting shot.
2. But the protesters did go near them.
3. Therefore the protesters didn't believe they would get shot.
4. Therefore the protesters implicitly agree that the secret police wouldn't shoot anyone.
5. So what's the issue?
I mean if we're all agreed that they wouldn't shoot anyone then what are you all complaining about.
|
I thought everyone here was agreed that "choices have consequences." Notice the lack of moral character to the claim? Notice how it doesn't stand on its own and doesn't justify anything but power? Notice that you don't even believe the statement now?
Where's your "choices have consequences" metaphysics now, where a lady was doing something incredibly stupid and ill advised with law enforcement? Are you now proposing a moral standard?
You're living through the consequences of your own "choices have consequences" Reddit mod metaphysics, actually. Indifferent tyrannizing of your fellows for your half baked political ends will be met with the same indifference. Your political opposition is no more or less indifferent than you, I assure you, so take this moment to glance in the mirror.
As an old-style Canadian liberal watching US politics unfold, you (loony socialists) are right about one thing, fwiw. After all the craziness, double standards, and overt tyranny, I do think there are those among your political opposition who genuinely want to shoot you. Take that under advisement if you're considering ramming a LE agent with your vehicle.
|
On January 11 2026 14:17 sevencck wrote:
I thought everyone here was agreed that "choices have consequences." Notice the lack of moral character to the claim? Notice how it doesn't stand on its own and doesn't justify anything but power? Notice that you don't even believe the statement now?
Where's your "choices have consequences" metaphysics now, where a lady was doing something incredibly stupid and ill advised with law enforcement? Are you now proposing a moral standard?
You're living through the consequences of your own "choices have consequences" Reddit mod metaphysics, actually. Indifferent tyrannizing of your fellows for your half baked political ends will be met with the same indifference. Your political opposition is no more or less indifferent than you, I assure you, so take this moment to glance in the mirror.
As an old-style Canadian liberal watching US politics unfold, you (loony socialists) are right about one thing, fwiw. After all the craziness, double standards, and overt tyranny, I do think there are those among your political opposition who genuinely want to shoot you. Take that under advisement if you're considering ramming a LE agent with your vehicle.
The vehicle did not "ram" into a law enforcement agent. The rest of your post is equally misrepresentative.
|
Canada11384 Posts
There are double standards alright, but it's MAGA commitment to defending all of Trump's actions at all costs. Abandoning all pretense of constitutional limits on the power of the president. In a weekend, MAGA abandons 'Kamala is forever wars. Trump is the peace candidate' in favour of 'fling missiles and steal shit'.
We now learn that it's epic and based to send the military into cities early and often... but no National Guard to protect Pence and the rest of the government from an armed mob calling to hang the Vice President.
And rolling your vehicle from a stop is license to be gunned down... but Ashley Babbit is a patriot and no officers were harmed in the storming of the capital. But if they were harmed it was a fedsurrection anyways (who was the president at that time?), so screw those police.
The position changes depending on the in and out group.
As long as the oppressed are your political opponents, the militarizing and tightening of the State's authority is never oppression.
They Thought They Were Free.
Right to the end of the war, They Thought They Were Free.
|
On January 11 2026 12:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2026 09:31 Sermokala wrote:On January 11 2026 08:52 ahswtini wrote:
So apparently if 'law enforcement' in the USA want to kill someone, they can just walk in front of their car and execute the driver in 'self defence'? You don't even have to be in law enforcement as these guys just randomly got out of a truck and approched her car. Anyone with guns can kill whoever they want by surrounding someone and claiming self defence when they try to leave. Guys randomly got out of a truck lol. Pretty cruel of this woman to leave her wife with the random guys who got out of a truck and just drive away as she videos it. No, anyone with guns cannot. Why can the police pull me out of a car and put me in handcuffs, but if I try to do the same to them I get tazed and shot? If .
You're so close to getting it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/zHHNm70f/eyes.gif)
