• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

quadrapiper said:
As default, agents of the government must be subject to that risk.
Click to expand...
Fair, and I lean that way. For those who feel strongly this way, however, bear in mind how popular doxxing is in the US, how people on the other side of an issue in the US have been threatened by activists and even passively threatened ("you might be sorry...") by prominent politicians, and how sometimes a person or group shows up at the home of someone deemed responsible for an unpopular decision or action - they don't go to the courthouse or the legislature or the agency building, they go to someone's residence.
quadrapiper said:
As a desirable/undesirable in Canada, or in another country?
Click to expand...
It probably differs; and, incitement, encouragement, and condonement are different levels. And there's a big difference between spontaneous protestors showing up to protest government overreach, and black-clad masked activists and people bearing printed signs.
 
Summer is 'showdown season' in the USA...

Trump's intervention in LA is a political fight he is eager to have​



"For the president to do this when it wasn't requested, breaking with generations of tradition, is only going to incite the situation and make things worse," said New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.

"A lot of these peaceful protests are being generated because the president of the United States is sowing chaos and confusion by arresting people who are showing up for their immigration hearings, who are trying to abide by the law."

The US has a long tradition of summer protests, and it is only early June.

Five months into Trump's second term, these California demonstrations may be an isolated event – or the start of greater civil unrest in the days ahead.

www.bbc.com

Trump's intervention in LA is a political fight he is eager to have

The president sees immigration and law and order as winning issues. Critics say deploying the National Guard is inflammatory.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Contrary to the claims that civil authorities cannot or will not act, LAPD is out in force, has issued a dispersal order for one particular protest, and has announced via social media a short time ago that less lethal munitions are authorized.
 
PrairieFella said:
I'm no pro at crowd control but I saw nothing in that crowd thay justified this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1l6mlfl/antiice_protest_in_downtown_la_being_escalated
Click to expand...

From the depths of my armchair I believe you would be correct, IMHO.

If the crowds are beating on your baseline, and showering them with bricks and molotov cocktails, give 'er troops.

However, just because your troops don't know how to disperse (shouty but not physically violent) crowds without CS gas and plastic bullets shouldn't give them permission to escalate force to that level because people don't feel like going home yet. Even if someone has given permission to use non-lethal force.

I also don't hear announcements being made (go away or we will arrest you) or see arrests being made, which is the best way to disperse crowds. That's why you usually have police involved too, but not in this case, which is nuts.

It would be interesting to see their response tested in court which, being America, is highly likely
 
I hate say but the mere presence of the National Guard is just a provocation.
Which quite frankly I suspect is the aim of the whole exercise.
Why don't I think the so called mob isn't quite the Clear and Present Danger the Administration keeps telling us they are ?
Well judging from Trump's previous behavior during a riot that at least he didn't start.
He was out playing Golf as opposed to hiding...oh I'm sorry..... I meant "supervising" from deep in some bunker.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Why should citizens believe they have the right to live where they do? Just because they were accidentally born there? The only people who have earned the right to live anywhere are those who have gone through a citizenship process, everyone else it was handed to them by accident. Illegals have generally done more to earn their place in the US than someone born and raised there.

Considering the US has profited and encouraged illegal immigration for several decades it isn’t surprising that sentiment has become more common.

Both sides of the isle did nothing because they benefited from it, cheap labour which didn’t get the same rights as a American citizen, essentially replacing slave labour and allowing the US to compete economically with many 2nd and 3rd world nations in labour costs.

They literally had illegals paying taxes which meant they couldn’t receive the benefits of said taxes but were paying into the system.

Those citizens rioting/protesting don’t see them as illegals, they see them as neighbours, friends, family. In many cases they have lived/worked with them for decades. Why would they want them deported?
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure what type of citizenship you are advocating. If I'm "accidentally" born in country, of parents who were "accidentally" born in the same country, I shouldn't have the right not to arbitrarily removed to some other country (or incarcerated) by the State? Do I need to do something to earn said right? What happens when a version of the State says what I did wasn't enough?
 
lenaitch said:
I'm not exactly sure what type of citizenship you are advocating. If I'm "accidentally" born in country, of parents who were "accidentally" born in the same country, I shouldn't have the right not to arbitrarily removed to some other country (or incarcerated) by the State? Do I need to do something to earn said right? What happens when a version of the State says what I did wasn't enough?
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but my read was that Eagle was facetiously pointing out the slippery slope that is "due process isn't for them"
 
lenaitch said:
I'm not exactly sure what type of citizenship you are advocating. If I'm "accidentally" born in country, of parents who were "accidentally" born in the same country, I shouldn't have the right not to arbitrarily removed to some other country (or incarcerated) by the State? Do I need to do something to earn said right? What happens when a version of the State says what I did wasn't enough?
Click to expand...
That confuses me as well. US citizenship can only be acquired by birthright or naturalization. Birthright meaning the person is born on US territory or is born anywhere in the world and has one parent who is a US citizen at the time of birth. Naturalization is the process by which a foreign national (an "alien" - their term) may be granted citizenship after meeting certain requirements.

There are lots of accidentally born Americans every year. Some are due to defective condoms so, in fact, they arrived via a "Trojan failure".
 
Haggis said:
That confuses me as well. US citizenship can only be acquired by birthright or naturalization. Birthright meaning the person is born on US territory or is born anywhere in the world and has one parent who is a US citizen at the time of birth. Naturalization is the process by which a foreign national (an "alien" - their term) may be granted citizenship after meeting certain requirements.

There are lots of accidentally born Americans every year. Some are due to defective condoms so, in fact, they arrived via a "Trojan failure".
Click to expand...
And even with that, Trump has openly questioned 'birthright citizenship', claiming their Constitution doesn't say what it says and the courts are all wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top