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
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.
If a majority of people think you have to risk your life to stop the perpetrator by going in proximity and using non lethal violence then the majority is wrong for me.
At some point if they don't stop you have a right to stop them, minimizing your own risk while doing that. And law enforcement should have that right as well.
they can, not violently. Remember violence includes violence against property. They can stop working and protest about whatever they want outside private property.
They can't occupy private property, or otherwise interfere with the use of private property or public property (without a permit).
That, for private workers. Workers in the public sector imho should not have the right to strike at all, as their greviances are with the entire population (that's who their employers are), and as such have to be dealt with at the ballot box.
If that's how you treat senators in your country, imagine your average citizens(or tourists!).
Have you seen the video weez? he was just removed from the area he had no business being in while disrupting a press conference. They were very gentle, and then law enforcement arrested him.
Now we are at the "disrupting press conferences is a human right" stage of human rights? the **** is wrong with you guys? you can't just stop being violent or defending violence?
If that's how you treat senators in your country, imagine your average citizens(or tourists!).
It will get worse.
Trump is apparently preparing an EO to allow illegals who work in farms to stay in the USA
At this point I assume the military is going to kill at least a few dozen citizens this Saturday. **** Trump & **** anyone who voted for him
they can, not violently. Remember violence includes violence against property. They can stop working and protest about whatever they want outside private property. They can't occupy private property, or otherwise interfere with the use of private property or public property (without a permit).That, for private workers. Workers in the public sector imho should not have the right
And if they do it's a moral imperative to kill them? Massacre them with glee as it were? And this is your idea of freedom?
So there are some decent people left in the USA
/
'WE WILL K*LL YOU!': Florida sheriff has a message for would-be leftist rioters. NOT IN FLORIDA.
"If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at. Because we will K*LL you, graveyard D*AD. We're NOT gonna play."
"If you spit on us, you're going to the hospital, then jail."
"If you hit one of us, you're going to the hospital, and jail - and most likely get bitten by one of our big, beautiful dogs we have here."
"If you try to mob rule a car in Brevard County - gather around it, refusing to let the driver leave? In our county, you're most likely gonna get RUN OVER, and dragged across the street."
...Do you have any political ambitions by any chance?
And if they do it's a moral imperative to kill them? Massacre them with glee as it were? And this is your idea of freedom?
If they do what, be violent and don't stop even when law enforcement comes to stop them? then yes they should be mowed down (if they resist arrest).
And yes my idea of freedom insists upon getting rid of all violent enemies of freedom. It's like a necessity for freedom to exist, to remove people who violently attempt to infringe on freedom.
If a majority of people think you have to risk your life to stop the perpetrator by going in proximity and using non lethal violence then the majority is wrong for me.
At some point if they don't stop you have a right to stop them, minimizing your own risk while doing that. And law enforcement should have that right as well.
Again you use this phrase “at some point” and then when we actually get down to what the “some point” means it turns out it’s right after they command someone to do something. Can you offer clarity about what the “some point” is?
If they do want, be violent and don't stop even when law enforcement comes to stop them? then yes they should be mowed down (if they resist arrest).
And yes my idea of freedom insists upon getting rid of all violent enemies of freedom. It's like a necessity for freedom to exist, to remove people who violently attempt to infringe on freedom.
See what you'd call "freedom", I'd call "megalomania".
Have you seen the video weez? he was just removed from the area he had no business being in while disrupting a press conference. They were very gentle, and then law enforcement arrested him.
Now we are at the "disrupting press conferences is a human right" stage of human rights? the **** is wrong with you guys? you can't just stop being violent or defending violence?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/12/los-angeles-protests-alex-padilla-kristi-noem
In a statement from Padilla’s office, his team said: “Senator Padilla is currently in Los Angeles exercising his duty to perform congressional oversight of the federal government’s operations in Los Angeles and across California. He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference.
So there are some decent people left in the USA/'WE WILL K*LL YOU!': Florida sheriff has a message for would-be leftist rioters. NOT IN FLORIDA."If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at. Because we will K*LL you, graveyard D*AD. We're NOT gonna play.""If you spit on us, you're goin
He cut out the first part where he was contrasting situations that would merely get you arrested. So no, this is not the principles that you set forth. He delineates between violent actions that will get violent retaliation and nonviolent actions that will get nonviolent retaliation.
This despite me disagreeing with what he is saying and thinking this is immediately disqualifying for a public official to be saying. But even in that case his standards are far more reasonable than yours, in my opinion.
He seems to be correct; being in the US without proper documentation simply is not a crime.
Trump is apparently preparing an EO to allow illegals who work in farms to stay in the USA
What a loogie to the face to everyone who argued against my immigration stance on this forum
He might as well have directly stated "coordi ruthlessly owned every single one of you for 6 months straight"
Again you use this phrase “at some point” and then when we actually get down to what the “some point” means it turns out it’s right after they command someone to do something. Can you offer clarity about what the “some point” is?
i thought the order was clear (and ofc every specific situation will be slightly different). You get ordered to interrupt your violent actions, given a very small amount of time to comply, then get warned again that you will be stopped violently if you don't interrupt the violent actions and let you be arrested without resistence, then again small amount of time, you still don't comply, you are a fair target for lethal violence.
Like i don't understand what you don't understand, everyone should just immediatly stop committing violence when law enforcement is ordering them that, how can you not agree with that?
He cut out the first part where he was contrasting situations that would merely get you arrested. So no, this is not the principles that you set forth. He delineates between violent actions that will get violent retaliation and nonviolent actions that will get nonviolent retaliation.This despite me disagreeing with what he is saying and thinking this is immediately disqualifyin
it is? because if when arrested you resist, then the rest comes.
What exactly is disqualifying in what he is saying???
