President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Biden massively increased ICE's budget and built the jails that Trump is using today. Kamala campaigned on more funding for ICE and more enforcement of immigration offenses.
Unlimited violence and basically killing everyone for things you dislike is infringing on other people's bodies and certainly a less free society. Not sure why you're not understanding this.
wtf what "things I dislike"?
if society agrees riots are illegal, its something society dislikes not just me.
I am just saying once you determine what is not allowed, then law enforcement has to be able to guarantee people stop doing it if found doing it.
it's a joke otherwise.
2015 was the VA i linked before, this was in 2017.The DoD started pushing the LGBTQ cult (and later the BLM cult) after don't ask don't tell was repealed by Obama in 2011. To the point the radical left actually made this meme later on
Pretty fire meme, huh? It demonstrates that both parties are comprised of imperialist hawks, but Democrats cloak their bloodthirstiness in socially moderate or liberal language about inclusion and what-have-you, which fools standard libs into thinking the Democrats are somehow a dove-ish party. Meanwhile, some 90% of prominent Democrats supported our invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s, a majority support Israel's campaign of mass murder of Palestinians, and so on.
Edit: you might want to sharpen up on what the word "cult" means, though
Libz
Marxists
Leninists
Marxist-Leninists
Commies
Leftists
Trans
People throwing plates on your floor
People damaging property
People pushing LGBTQ "propaganda"
*goes on for another 17 hours*
if society agrees riots are illegal, its something society dislikes not just me.
Yeah it's the kill 'em all part where you and society differ. Society doesn't advocate execution for such offences.
I am just saying once you determine what is not allowed, then law enforcement has to be able to guarantee people stop doing it if found doing it.
it's a joke otherwise.
That's what courts and prison sentences are for. There's no way you can say with a straight face that you advocate a free society. So again I'm quite bemused at you claiming to be libertarian.
You need to be credibly willing as law enforcement of killing any perpetrator of violence (against people or property) if the violence doesn't stop very soon after you appear . They have to know they either stop or die.
Can you define very soon?
Like tell me what should happen if someone is spray painting and a cop tells them to stop but they keep going. Is that the point where a cop can now shoot to kill or are there lots of intermediate steps in between?
Because it sounds like all you’re saying is that cops will escalate force based on the level of noncompliance throughout a prescribed process. The phrase potential unlimited force with the qualifier potential modifying unlimited seems to take out any force of unlimited such that when you say kill, it doesn’t seem like it will ever really get to that point once you include the intermediary steps.
courts and sentences are for people that let themselves be arrested. ie people who defer to law enforcement when caught in the act, or when after an investigation there is a warrant on their heads.
we are talking a specific different subset of people instead: en flagrante criminals who don't stop when ordered to do so.
violence against them is not only reasonable, it is morally imperative. and it doesn't make society "not free", it actually makes it free, because if people can with impunity abuse your property, society is NOT free.
I dislike a lot of things but I do not advocate for the death of any of the groups you mention unless they are doing crimes against bodies or property en flagrante and don't stop when ordered to do so by law enforcement.
it's just unbelievable for me that you accept violent criminals burning streets in the city and would call putting them down like the animals they are being against freedom. they are the threat to freedom and their removal increases freedom.
spaceman do you realize the USA had far less violence from striking workers than all of europe in the 20th century (almost none), because it massacred them with a glee and no remorse whatsoever, when they tried in the late 19th century? that's the ethos we need today as well.
lol no
that is not why we don't have union strike deaths
Can you define very soon?Like tell me what should happen if someone is spray painting and a cop tells them to stop but they keep going. Is that the point where a cop can now shoot to kill or are there lots of intermediate steps in between?Because it sounds like all you’re saying is that cops will escalate force based on the level of noncompliance throughout a prescribed process
do you realize in the society I advocate for they do ****ing stop immediately? because they know they would be dead otherwise.
it doesn't get to that point almost ever once it is established but you need to credibly threaten that it can reach that to achieve that.
it's like you need to credibly threaten nuclear apocalypse to reduce violence.
in the far west you knew very well you could get killed if you tried to steal from other people, yet it's not like everyone got killed for that. people simply stopped stealing from those who could credibly kill them (!!!).
imagine guards in shops (or law enforcement) killing 5, 10, 20, 100 looters and courts and elected politicians of both parties praising them for that, and rewarding them financially.
how many looters would die after that? almost none as people will simply stop looting.
courts and sentences are for people that let themselves be arrested. ie people who defer to law enforcement when caught in the act, or when after an investigation there is a warrant on their heads.we are talking a specific different subset of people instead: en flagrante criminals who don't stop when ordered to do so.violence against them is not only reasonable, it is morally i
“I cherish peace with all of my heart. I don’t care how many men, women and children I need to kill to get it.”
Nothing to see here. Sig Heil!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congres...
Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was forcibly removed from a news conference in Los Angeles on Thursday and briefly detained after trying to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
"I am Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary," Padilla said to Noem, which prompted several men to physically push him out of the room. It was unclear who the men were as several were dressed in plainclothes.
It is in the UK and most other countries, including the US under Sections 1325 and 1326 of Chapter 8 of the US Code. But certain Americans (not least lawyers whose income derives from immigration cases) claim those laws are racist and therefore somehow don't count. More significantly, the US economy depends to a large extent on 'undocumented' migrants and much of the better-off American middle class, often calling themselves 'liberals', employ such people as domestic servants (or, as they euphemistically put it, 'help'). It's almost like the plantation mentality never went away, and of course it didn't.
You of course can be deported for being in the country without proper documentation.
Well, yes. You can.
spaceman do you realize the USA had far less violence from striking workers than all of europe in the 20th century (almost none), because it massacred them with a glee and no remorse whatsoever, when they tried in the late 19th century? that's the ethos we need today as well.
Don't tell this guy. He thinks that:
The United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world. . . . At different times employers and workers have played the roles of aggressors and victims.
It is in the UK and most other countries, including the US under Sections 1325 and 1326 of Chapter 8 of the US Code. But certain Americans (not least lawyers whose income derives from immigration cases) claim those laws are racist and therefore somehow don't count. More significantly, the US economy depends to a large extent on 'undocumented' migrants and much of the better-off
You apparently don't know how to read. Those sections deal with illegal entry, not simply being in the country without proper documentation, which is what my post was about. Being in the country without proper documentation can occur in a variety of ways, most commonly by overstaying a visa. As Gorgonian correctly explained, a significant percentage of people who are in the country illegally overstayed a visa. It used to be more than half. Now it is a bit less than half.
No lawyers claim that those sections of the U.S. Code "don't count." The sections are on the books, and as far as I know, no appellate court has ever concluded that either section is unconstitutional.
"We're not going away," Noem said before the disruption. "We are going to liberate the city from the burdensome leadership, mayor and governor."
do you realize in the society I advocate for they do ****ing stop immediately? because they know they would be dead otherwise.it doesn't get to that point almost ever once it is established but you need to credibly threaten that it can reach that to achieve that.it's like you need to credibly threaten nuclear apocalypse to reduce violence.in the far west you knew very well you
So it’s not unlimited potential force, it’s unlimited actual force. I don’t think most people would consider going from “hey stop doing that” to shooting to kill to be a reasonable escalation of force. Your caveat of potential and gestures towards procedure are not at all accurate to your position.
it's just unbelievable for me that you accept violent criminals burning streets in the city and would call putting them down like the animals they are being against freedom. they are the threat to freedom and their removal increases freedom.
The last time there were riots in London, in 2011, it went on for a couple of days and nights and by the third day they'd bussed in so many police, from as far away as Manchester, that the crims just went home. Those large numbers of large policemen in boilersuits and riot gear clearly owned the streets and the crims did not. No shots were fired.
Don't be abusive.
No lawyers claim that those sections of the U.S. Code "don't count."
Don't they?
In recent years, people charged with §§ 1325 and 1326 have been challenging the law based on the fact Congress enacted it for overtly racist purposes. Last year, in a landmark decision, a judge in the District of Nevada ruled that § 1326 is indeed unconstitutional. However, the government appealed this decision.
"We're not going away," Noem said before the disruption. "We are going to liberate the city from the burdensome leadership, mayor and governor."
Damn, they threw him to the ground and handcuffed him.
spaceman do you realize the USA had far less violence from striking workers than all of europe in the 20th century (almost none), because it massacred them with a glee and no remorse whatsoever, when they tried in the late 19th century? that's the ethos we need today as well.
Workers can't go on strike now?
