Trump 'authorizing Full Force, if necessary' as military deploys to another US city

[Vermilion]

I thought you said no ICE agents had been killed?? How is that 'open season'??

It’s almost like everyone forgot about Chop Chaz Zone, Cop City, Alvarado and over 100 day daily firebombing assault on Portland courthouse.
They’ve shot a cop in the neck and killed innocents.
The locals in some places have told citizens not to call 911.(Portland)
The locals in some places have instructed their police not to assist feds calls for help.(shitcongo)
Antifa is using guns, explosives, body armor and military tactics against the authorities.
Wake up.

[putnam6]

Thats not how this works. Today dictates tomorrow.

Should a president be able to make executive orders going against SCOTUS rulings on the constitution? Can a president make laws with executive orders. Does the president get to decide the status of Habeas Corpus. Is it concerning all of that is in the same context of military being deployed to states against governors wishes?

These are legal questions, not political ones.

Yeah, man, take off your robe and put down your gavel 

 Historically... we interned thousands of innocent Japanese during WWII because of the national fires burning after Pearl Harbor

The Patriot Act would never get passed today, but it was  passed easily in response to 9/11 national fires

Those are the 2 obvious answers, and there are likely other times where the collective good was protected at the expense of a group or individual

Not saying it's right, but it is our reality.

We have people assassinating people for free speech, protests over 100 days, we can sit with our thumbs up our butts or try to mitigate its damage and repercussions to ALL legal AMERICANS 

Or we can just continue to give them cash EBTs and debit and credit cards, lodging in our hotels etc, paid for by legal Americans. While letting foreign gangs with American debit cards take over public housing in Chi Town.

and wait for the next cause du jour for Antifa to join and agitate the protest

[Vermilion]

See my above reply, I think it shows my position on all of this.

Im not defending anyone who is breaking the law. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t go against laws to fix the situation.

Also, this is creating a tinder box. To your point on foreign actors, what would happen if a foreign actor sent a lunatic to do something right now? What would happen after? Insurrection act, military now doing policing. Are those possibilities worth it because protesters threw rocks and got in the way? Not to me.

And I get that people say we shouldn’t always be panicking about the worst case scenario, but again this is going to have impact beyond just this instance. Other leaders will have these tools, and they shouldn’t. They also shouldn’t be able to enact law with executive orders, especially when it contradicts SCOTUS rulings on constitutional rights.

The feds and guard aren’t creating this problem.
They are the solution.

SCOTUS is backing the presidents power to stop it.
It’s not a new power either.
If you have a problem with POTUS having that power then your beef is with the legislative body.
I can’t determine whether your fear is real, situational or faux.
The guard is as close to civilians as it gets.
They all have day jobs and are your neighbors, accountants, plumbers and barbers.

[CriticalStinker]

Yeah, man, take off your robe and put down your gavel 

 Historically... we interned thousands of innocent Japanese during WWII because of the national fires burning after Pearl Harbor

The Patriot Act would never get passed today, but it was  passed easily in response to 9/11 national fires

Those are the 2 obvious answers, and there are likely other times where the collective good was protected at the expense of a group or individual

Not saying it's right, but it is our reality.

We have people assassinating people for free speech, protests over 100 days, we can sit with our thumbs up our butts or try to mitigate its damage and repercussions to ALL legal AMERICANS 

Or we can just continue to give them cash EBTs and debit, and credit cards lodging in our hotels etc.paid for by legal Americans

and wait for the next cause du jour for Antifa to join and agitate the protest

I don’t think any of that justifies the president making laws with tweets, and going directly against SCOTUS rulings of constitution.

I don’t know how people who weren’t Trump supporters are supposed to trust the admin when they blatantly overstep their powers. Presidents can’t make laws. They can’t weigh in on what’s constitutional.

It’s just so shocking for me that the “constitutional” party suddenly doesn’t care. As long as its their guy it’s all fair game.

I don’t see how any of our past failures justify the ones happening now.

[putnam6]

I don’t think any of that justifies the president making laws with tweets, and going directly against SCOTUS rulings of constitution.

I don’t know how people who weren’t Trump supporters are supposed to trust the admin when they blatantly overstep their powers. Presidents can’t make laws. They can’t weigh in on what’s constitutional.

It’s just so shocking for me that the “constitutional” party suddenly doesn’t care. As long as its their guy it’s all fair game.

I don’t see how any of our past failures justify the ones happening now.

It's about balance... right now the balance favors Trump legal Americans are overwhelmingly in support of deport of the undocumented and criminal element that has flooded across the border over the last 20 years and definitely the last 4.

Nothing Trump's done cant be undone, and every other move of his has been blocked by district judges as it is.

The system isn't perfect, but it is operating as it mostly should...

IF its shown Soros or any foreign interest is even partially financing protests AND or politicians in America seems to be the larger existing threat than a rogue, fictional, extra authoritarian never-before duly elected President.

Evidence over theoreticals


Stephen Miller

@StephenM
·
2h

The Biden Administration orchestrated a mass invasion of the United States by illegal aliens. TRUE

At the center of the 2024 election was the pledge to end the invasion and send the illegals home.TRUE

President Trump won in a historic landslide. not EXACTLY TRUE but stiil 

Since November, the Left has unleashed a flood of violence against ICE officers to try to overturn the election result and stop the removal of criminals and aliens illegally in our country. TRUE


At the same time, Democrat politicians have waged a campaign of dehumanizing and vile rhetoric at courageous federal law enforcement officers TRUE

ordered police departments to allow the rioters to blockade and threaten ICE, turned their cities into “sanctuaries” for fugitive aliens, and provided moral aid and comfort to those criminally obstructing, doxing and impeding ICE. TRUE

All for the purpose of keeping foreign trespassers on our soil, at any price or cost. TRUE

[CriticalStinker]

It's about balance... 

Nothing Trump's done cant be undone, and every other move of his has been blocked by district judges as it is.

The system isn't perfect, but it is operating as it mostly should...

IF its shown Soros or any foreign interest is even partially financing protests AND or politicians in America seems to be the larger existing threat than a rogue, fictional, extra authoritarian never-before duly elected President.

Evidence over theoreticals

My point was exactly about balances, some some wanting none.

It also wasn’t theoretical, it was the evidence. Trump made a law with a tweet, that law contradicts a Supreme Court ruling. He even said he is taking away some freedom of speech on video yesterday.

none of that is up to him. We have documents that govern more than the individuals in power.

the unwillingness to acknowledge that is truly alarming.

[UltraBudgie]

The restrictions in the 1st amendment do not apply to Trump. They apply to Congress. Read the Constitution, please.

Of course if Trump issues an executive order that the Federal Courts determine is unlawful, such as in some way subtly violating the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, then issues like that are what the courts are there to decide, and the order will be of null effect to the extent of that determination. That is the job of the courts. I'm not seeing what's controversial here?

Trump has the power to do his job. Obviously.

[putnam6]

My point was exactly about balances, some some wanting none.

It also wasn’t theoretical, it was the evidence. Trump made a law with a tweet, that law contradicts a Supreme Court ruling. He even said he is taking away some freedom of speech on video yesterday.

none of that is up to him. We have documents that govern more than the individuals in power.

the unwillingness to acknowledge that is truly alarming.

I haven't seen what you are referring to... point me in the right direction... 

Trump made a law with a "tweet"  

Don't tell me you read and believe everyone the man's tweets... 

There are plenty of checks and balances still opposing King Trump 


FWIW
I remain interested in your thoughts because you are well-balanced and rational.

I find it easier to discuss with you, and I apologize if my tone sounds overtly confrontational...

I'll gladly run my comments through the Grammarly-friendly filter

For example, here's what the above post would sound like

 

Make it friendly
I haven’t seen what you’re referring to, so I’d really appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction!

Are you saying that Trump made a law via a tweet?

I hope you don’t take all of his tweets at face value!

It’s good to remember that there are still checks and balances in place opposing King Trump.

By the way, I truly value your thoughts since you have such a balanced and rational perspective.

I always find it easier to discuss these topics with you! I apologize if my previous tone came off as confrontational; that wasn’t my intention at all.

I’d love to share my comments in a more friendly way.

Here’s how I might express my previous points with that in mind:

[UltraBudgie]

I'll gladly run my comments through the Grammarly-friendly filter

For the love of Science delete that damn thing right now friend.

[CriticalStinker]

I haven't seen what you are referring to... point me in the right direction... 

Trump made a law with a "tweet"  

Don't tell me you read and believe everyone the man's tweets... 

There are plenty of checks and balances still opposing King Trump 


FWIW
I remain interested in your thoughts because you are well-balanced and rational.

I find it easier to discuss with you, and I apologize if my tone sounds overtly confrontational...

I'll gladly run my comments through the Grammarly-friendly filter

For example, here's what the above post would sound like

 

Thanks for the kind words!

Even if there ever is tone that I perceive, it’s not ever taken personally. People are allowed to be passionate and convicted. Ive had heated discussions with anyone worth conversing with. Hell, sometimes at work there are uncomfortable conversations. All good.

That said, the tweet in question in question was about the flag burning. Though, it was an executive order before the tweet I believe.

Ive never burned on, don’t believe I ever would, and don’t think I’d like most people who have… just not his place. And SCOTUS has decided that act is freedom of speech/expession.