United States Civil War

[intel-bank]

I don’t need to last. I am quite happy, here, now.

I meant simply that tensions are going to peak during the next few years.

And with what I find humorous many resort to the moral argument over law. Almost with a religious fervor.

I don’t see why it’s a bad thing. I think many laws are unjust, should be challenged, and even that civil disobedience is a duty at times.

Do we dispute that anti-abortion protestors acted with moral clarity while protesting clinics.

No, I just believe that the topic has no right answer. If there is one, then I suppose God will judge those. But I’ll never forget being with a woman who was severely injured by pregnancy.

Let me be clear on this. What has happened and is happening to those who’ve been encouraged or allowed to enter the US illegally is a tragedy.

Then don’t deport them, it’s unnecessary and the vast majority of them commit less crimes after the first unlawful entry than most Americans.

Any and all efforts to side step or dismiss the root cause of the problem.

I reject that there are too many migrants to begin with. I think the system needs fixed but I think that they should’ve identified like any American so that they can be punished for criminal activity, but that migrants are a net benefit and always have been, and that WE destabilized a lot of their home countries.

I’m repulsed by speeches from minority socialists declaring they are not going back to “work the fields” let some other POC pick cotton and do the landscaping for this generation.

I think the slavery of migrants is repugnant and that in part is caused by many lacking the protection of the law. I think that both sides exasperate the slavery problem and that it needs addressed but that mass deportation isn’t the answer nor is sending computer programmers to pick strawberries because we deported those who’s skills match.

Thus my allusion to being at war. There is a fundamental difference between how to govern and where we’re even wanting to go.

I agree

It will remain a war because I’ve seen first hand how democrats will use the regulatory and legal system to silence opposition. From labeling them trailer trash, to believe all women.
The only meaningful words are those who serve your political and economic ambitions.

As someone who fought hard to get away from being “trailer trash”, is that conservatives are the ones who reinforce legal systems that trap people in bad cycles.

As for believe all women, I implore some men to ask just 2 women they know if they know anyone who has been raped.

 

[intel-bank]

Chicago Mayor Spazzes Out Over ‘Racist’ Term ‘Illegal Alien’
Chicago Mayor Spazzes Out Over ‘Racist’ Term ‘Illegal Alien’

The problem with the term is it is dehumanizing, which makes it easier for people to justify some actions against them

You know who uses these kind of tactics to demand they get their way?
Children, grown adult children who cannot accept being told no I do not agree with you.

And yet your side sends in the military when you are resisted just a little bit, and see it as just based on legal basis, as if law is always right

 

[Publius]

I meant simply that tensions are going to peak during the next few years.

I don’t see why it’s a bad thing. I think many laws are unjust, should be challenged, and even that civil disobedience is a duty at times.

So you are the moral authority to decide for everyone else.

No, I just believe that the topic has no right answer. If there is one, then I suppose God will judge those. But I’ll never forget being with a woman who was severely injured by pregnancy.

Then don’t deport them, it’s unnecessary and the vast majority of them commit less crimes after the first unlawful entry than most Americans

Again nothing to talk about untill we can agree that the ridiculous dehumanization of illegal aliens are subject to immigration laws and their duties to apply and enter the country legally.
But we can’t because you have already made yourself the supreme moral authority above the law and above other citizens.
That’s a very bad place to be, kinda authoritarian and fascistic.

I reject that there are too many migrants to begin with. I think the system needs fixed but I think that they should’ve identified like any American so that they can be punished for criminal activity, but that migrants are a net benefit and always have been, and that WE destabilized a lot of their home countries.

I think the slavery of migrants is repugnant and that in part is caused by many lacking the protection of the law. I think that both sides exasperate the slavery problem and that it needs addressed but that mass deportation isn’t the answer nor is sending computer programmers to pick strawberries because we deported those who’s skills match.

Again another prime example of manipulation of the meaning of words.
Equating slavery to illegal immigrants

I agree

As someone who fought hard to get away from being “trailer trash”, is that conservatives are the ones who reinforce legal systems that trap people in bad cycles.

As for believe all women, I implore some men to ask just 2 women they know if they know anyone who has been raped.

I’d have and I helped her wrestle through the trauma of it and an abortion that haunted her the rest of her life.
Pain and suffering is never a reason to not do the right thing.

 

[Publius]

The problem with the term is it is dehumanizing, which makes it easier for people to justify some actions against them

It’s easy because it’s the law you don’t like it because it illuminates the hypocrisy of your argument.

And yet your side sends in the military when you are resisted just a little bit, and see it as just based on legal basis, as if law is always right

Again playing the moral authority for everyone
Laws are made and in place to keep people working between the lines.
When some to move and operate outside the lines of the law they should not be surprised when legal authority is imposed against them.
Here’s the simple FACT the supremacy clause delegates the authority to administer immigration to the federal government.
What states like Illinois and California are now talking about doing is a violation of this delegated authority.

It is approaching the level usurpation of powers that South Carolina acted on when they seize fort sumpter.

It’s not what Trump is doing. It’s that Trump is doing it. That he fought and won reelection, the hyperbolic death of democracy.

 

[intel-bank]

So you are the moral authority to decide for everyone else.

Why do you think the government is instead? Considering when your party gets in power they make laws based on their perceived moral authority.

That’s a very bad place to be, kinda authoritarian and fascistic.

“ I think immigrants whether documented or not should have the same basic human rights as any American” and you say “that’s authoritarian and fascist”, yet the party you cheer for is the party that keeps violating human rights

Equating slavery to illegal immigrants

Immigrant slavery is widespread in the world, and someone’s documentation doesn’t change that, but not extending legal protections to some immigrants guarantees that modern day slavery will continue.

I’d have and I helped her wrestle through the trauma of it and an abortion that haunted her the rest of her life.
Pain and suffering is never a reason to not do the right thing.

I was specifically referring in regards to commenting based on believing women. The problem is extremely widespread, the vast majority of women know a woman who has been raped.

 

[intel-bank]

It’s easy because it’s the law you don’t like it because it illuminates the hypocrisy of your argument.

It doesn’t highlight any hypocrisy - my argument that unjust laws must be challenged is not incompatible with laws in general, it is my belief that it is a moral duty to ensure that laws which allow the government overwhelming power to be justified should damn well be moral and just ones.

 

[Publius]

It doesn’t highlight any hypocrisy - my argument that unjust laws must be challenged is not incompatible with laws in general, it is my belief that it is a moral duty to ensure that laws which allow the government overwhelming power to be justified should damn well be moral and just ones.

So you accomplish this change through the constitutional and legal framework. Not with protest that interfere with the officers duties.

Now all that said I’m a big believer in the citizens right to force change by other means.

My point is that in the context of compromise we are way past that. I simply want to frame the situation in an accurate context. States interfering with federal law enforcement are quickly approaching the level of real insurrection.
I just want to make sure those that are advocating for this course own it.
And in making this choice they are exposing themselves to risk.
This is not simple civil disobedience or protesting.

 

[Torch]

So you accomplish this change through the constitutional and legal framework. Not with protest that interfere with the officers duties.

Now all that said I’m a big believer in the citizens right to force change by other means.

My point is that in the context of compromise we are way past that. I simply want to frame the situation in an accurate context. States interfering with federal law enforcement are quickly approaching the level of real insurrection.
I just want to make sure those that are advocating for this course own it.
And in making this choice they are exposing themselves to risk.
This is not simple civil disobedience or protesting.

I don’t believe the Democrats will start their second foray in insurrection by arresting Federal Law Enforcement Officers.

(ha ha ha) <Sorry, I was thinking of their prisons or jails condition as Δ departs> Just acidic musings.

They really can’t be that stupid, can they?

 

[Cilvilt_beredskap]

I didn't know that Gunthrie Govan's guitar was a horrifying call for murder during protests that pretty much constantly have been peaceful.

 

[intel-bank]

'Material factual error': 9th Circuit reverses victory for Trump admin in National Guard case after discovery shows feds lied about troop numbers in Oregon​

The Trump administration notched itself an illusory victory in federal court this week in one of the ongoing legal battles over the federal use of state National Guard troops to police American cities.

On Monday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, stayed a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term in office.

By Friday, the full 9th Circuit administratively stayed the panel's own stay – "[w]ithout objection from the panel," an order notes.

That quick turnabout appears to be the result of some unfair play.

The panel majority held that defendants were likely to prevail under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) because the record showed a colorable inability to execute federal law. Central to that determination was the majority's acceptance of defendants' averments that protests had forced the redeployment of 115 Federal Protection Service officers, "nearly 25% of FPS officers nationwide," to Portland. The dissent noted that defendants' declaration on the actual extent of the deployment was "carefully worded" to the point of "vague." But defendants' counsel emphasized at oral argument the "magnitude" and "unsustainab[ility]" of having 115 FPS offices redeployed; then, when asked directly whether all 115 officers remained in Portland, counsel stated only that "some" had gone home but "many" remained.

9th Circuit reverses victory for Trump admin in National Guard case after feds get caught lying

By Friday, the full 9th Circuit administratively stayed the panel's own stay – "[w]ithout objection from the panel."

lawandcrime.com

You really think the Trump regime would do that? Just go into court and lie like that?

 

[teekay99]

You really think the Trump regime would do that? Just go into court and lie like that?

Maybe not lies but rather "Alternate facts".

 

[Torch]

It’s just lawyers being lawyers. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. Trump or ANY President will win.

The article fails to note the the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court (by the SCOTUS).


IMO

The whole thing is bullshit. If local authorities and failing that State governments would do there job and maintain order it would not be an issue. If the liberals win, the crowds will be emboldened and sooner or later a fed will be killed on federal ground or a fire bomb will ignite some federal officer or personal. Once that happens, the National Gaurd will not be attempting to enforce civil law. US Troops will be deployed and people will die, mostly or even exclusively the rioters. Nobody wants that.

 

[intel-bank]

It’s just lawyers being lawyers. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. Trump or ANY President will win.

The article fails to note the the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court (by the SCOTUS).


IMO

The whole thing is bullshit. If local authorities and failing that State governments would do there job and maintain order it would not be an issue. If the liberals win, the crowds will be emboldened and sooner or later a fed will be killed on federal ground or a fire bomb will ignite some federal officer or personal. Once that happens, the National Gaurd will not be attempting to enforce civil law. US Troops will be deployed and people will die, mostly or even exclusively the rioters. Nobody wants that.

Why should our local governments help your government treat us like shit? Nobody is out here killing federal officers, and talks already making threats because the tiniest bit of resistance is seen as violence. Why are you guys so convinced you need to come in to our cities, from whatever rural shithole y’all’s creep up from coming into our cities, our homes, to take our neighbors off the streets, just so you owned the libs and got those evil aliens out.

Our governments job is to serve our community, not you coming into to force your will into cities that you don’t live in.

 

[teekay99]

Why should our local governments help your government treat us like shit? Nobody had killed any federal officers, and talks already making threats because the tiniest bit of resistance is seen as violence. Why are you guys so convinced you need to come in to our cities, from whatever rural shithole y’all’s creep up from coming into our cities, our homes, to take our neighbors off the streets, just so you owned the libs and got those evil aliens out.

Our governments job is to serve our community, not you coming into to force your will into cities that you don’t live in.

Consider a group of tourists from Indiana visiting Chicago and they unknowingly get caught up in a riot that is not being properly policed by local authorities, and those tourists are killed. Then consider that this has happened more than once. Does the Indiana national guard send troops to Illinois to protect Indiana citizens, or does it become incumbent upon Federal authorities to step in and see to it that order is restored in Chicago?

Yes this is a hypothetical situation, but it is meant to show that there may be a federal role for troop deployments in cities, beyond serving local communities that said federal authorities do not live in.

 

[intel-bank]

Consider a group of tourists from Indiana visiting Chicago and they unknowingly get caught up in a riot that is not being properly policed by local authorities, and those tourists are killed. Then consider that this has happened more than once. Does the Indiana national guard send troops to Illinois to protect Indiana citizens, or does it become incumbent upon Federal authorities to step in and see to it that order is restored in Chicago?

Yes this is a hypothetical situation, but it is meant to show that there may be a federal role for troop deployments in cities, beyond serving local communities that said federal authorities do not live in.

It is hypothetical, and I could say the same thing, I go into rural Louisiana get shot by some redneck who gets away with it cause I know from living in rural areas of red states they do most of the time, they get away with all sorts of shit, should I bring a militia and demand I run the place now?

My example is barely a hypothetical, you want to talk about our cities being underpoliced when I know from personal experience they are significantly more policed, and when law is broken you are significantly more likely to get in trouble than out in the sticks.

 

[teekay99]

It is hypothetical, and I could say the same thing, I go into rural Louisiana get shot by some redneck who gets away with it cause I know from living in rural areas of red states they do most of the time, they get away with all sorts of shit, should I bring a militia and demand I run the place now?

This is not so hypothetical. Federal troops were used to enforce integration and desegregation efforts in the South (Arkansas in 1957, Mississippi in 1962, and Alabama in 1963) against the wishes of the majority of the local population, to enforce the law. Do you agree with the use of federal troops in this situation? If yes, wouldn't you need to also agree with the need to use federal troops to restore local order in troubled cities, even if it is against the wishes of the majority of the local population to enforce the law in order to remain logically consistent?

 

[intel-bank]

This is not so hypothetical. Federal troops were used to enforce integration and desegregation efforts in the South (Arkansas in 1957, Mississippi in 1962, and Alabama in 1963) against the wishes of the majority of the local population, to enforce the law. Do you agree with the use of federal troops in this situation?

I sure do.

If yes, wouldn't you need to also agree with the need to use federal troops to restore local order in troubled cities, even if it is against the wishes of the majority of the local population to enforce the law in order to remain logically consistent?

No, because the difference between forcing a bunch of racists to allow black people to have equal rights is vastly different then coming in and “cleaning up” our “troubled cities”, which yes have some issues, ones that the federal government has no business dealing with, the federal government doesn’t understand them and will just make them worse like they always do when they stick their hands in these cities.

And I think it’s sickening also to compare desegregation to ripping up our neighbors off the streets, as well. The more proper comparison would be if back in those days in the south, instead of desegregation we just started ripping black people off the streets and sending them to Africa.

 

[Publius]

Why should our local governments help your government treat us like shit? Nobody is out here killing federal officers, and talks already making threats because the tiniest bit of resistance is seen as violence. Why are you guys so convinced you need to come in to our cities, from whatever rural shithole y’all’s creep up from coming into our cities, our homes, to take our neighbors off the streets, just so you owned the libs and got those evil aliens out.

Our governments job is to serve our community, not you coming into to force your will into cities that you don’t live in.

I simply love the elitist prejudiced characterization of the other. It’s so refreshing to see those who are arguing for understanding and open mindedness. Are operating from a truly open minded welcoming understanding of others.

By your argument the civil rights laws are unconstitutional and should all be repealed. After all they were the federal gov going into communities and forcing their will on those communities.
Because again progressives socialist always know best

 

[intel-bank]

I simply love the elitist prejudiced characterization of the other. It’s so refreshing to see those who are arguing for understanding and open mindedness. Are operating from a truly open minded welcoming understanding of others.

By your argument the civil rights laws are unconstitutional and should all be repealed. After all they were the federal gov going into communities and forcing their will on those communities.
Because again progressives socialist always know best

Once again comparing ripping people off our streets and trying to intervene in issues that particularly effect cities that the federal government doesn’t know shit about, to the federal government saying “you have to give these people rights” is truly sick. No, like I said above the proper comparison would be if we were ripping black people off the streets of the south and “deporting” them to Africa, then deciding when they were done to go demand they water their fields with Brawndo

 

[Publius]

I sure do.

No, because the difference between forcing a bunch of racists to allow black people to have equal rights is vastly different then coming in and “cleaning up” our “troubled cities”, which yes have some issues, ones that the federal government has no business dealing with, the federal government doesn’t understand them and will just make them worse like they always do when they stick their hands in these cities.

And I think it’s sickening also to compare desegregation to ripping up our neighbors off the streets, as well. The more proper comparison would be if back in those days in the south, instead of desegregation we just started ripping black people off the streets and sending them to Africa.

Here the thing we have a legal and constitutional system to arbitrate all this.
Allow it to work, I’m willing to. As torch said SCOTUS will likely uphold the federal position on guard deployments. More than likely the ninth will likely rule to allow it to proceed anyway.

I and others waited and worked peacefully for a lifetime to change laws and courts on the issue of abortion availability. That is the way we work, or as I’ve mentioned we go to war.

Anyway we would not have ripped blacks off the street in good old days of the south. Why because they were citizens.