• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DC protesters try tearing down Andrew Jackson statue at Lafayette Park, set up 'BHAZ' near White Hou


Oh.. I thought that you were going to tell me it was illegal because of Posse Comitatus.

If the radical anarchists come to DC and do what they've done in Seattle, I think that many Americans would not care if Trump called out Federal Troops to place a ring of steel around the area.

I am not suggesting that US Army personnel fix bayonets, shoot anyone or injure anyone.

It is just apparent to me that the do-nothing democratic mayor of DC will do just that - Nothing.
 

The Insurrection Act is the standard for active duty troops to be deployed and DC isn't anywhere near the conditions and requirements of the Act. Neither is the country. You're nowhere near the mark on this one as you focus instead on the mayor of DC who you hate instead of the law and the Constitution. You need to acquire a professional attitude toward active duty troops and their deployment rather than view the same as your personal racial and rightwing political means.
 
The statue vandalism needs to end. Now. It's becoming a broken window thing and contributing to the chaos.

If you don't like a statue then do the GD work. Start a petition, collect signatures, persuade the city council to remove it. It's not your f-ing right to decide for everyone what goes in the public spaces.

Next time someone tags or pulls one down there should be consequences. Fines and possible jail time.
 


The Act - wiki - Insurrection Act of 1807 - Wikipedia

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:

"when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253)."

DC is not a state, so there may be a problem with the Act's language.

Trump will find a way to send troops in if he feels it is necessary.
 
Last edited:
Some of us are looking forward to an autonomous country filled with women in shorts and tank tops.
 

A wife who goes out and protest is neglecting her family responsibilities.
 

Trump can't find his arse with both hands and blindfolded.

Big as his arse is. So you can put away your magic wand because no he won't "find a way."

SecDef Esper said publicly the conditions to employ the Insurrection Act are nowhere near the statutory standard that authorizes it. Not even close. You need to face that Trump is moving toward issuing an order -- whatever it may be -- the Pentagon is going to tell him is illegal. Neither does anyone at Pentagon need to resign because it is the duty of the armed forces to identify, report and resist an illegal order. It is the obligation of the armed forces to stand up to an illegal order, to stand it down and to return to normalcy however it is defined under the circumstance.
 

It’s not secretary Esper’s decision to make. The statute never provides any power of the Secretary of Defense in this manner. Only the president.
 
X Factor said:
Is it just me, or have you gotten more hostile lately?
Click to expand...

I've developed a low tolerance for people who have no idea what they are talking about.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It’s not secretary Esper’s decision to make. The statute never provides any power of the Secretary of Defense in this manner. Only the president.
Click to expand...

Only two people in the government can issue official orders to the armed forces: Potus and Secretary of Defense. No other office holder in the government has the authority. So you're wrong, ie, Esper is the other major figure and the other major figure indeed.


'I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act': Defense Secretary Esper breaks with Trump on use of troops




Trump as Potus has said a couple of dozen things that if he turned 'em into an order to the armed forces would be patently and unmistakably illegal and Trump would absolutely be told the fact and the order rejected by the military chiefs and commanders. Absolutely so. Further, Americans do not want the Army invading their state or community. Crucially, neither does the Army want to do that, as we saw when active duty troops were deployed and their feedback to commanders was that they didn't belong there. Moreover, Trump's assumption the armed forces will obey any command he gives is wrong wrong wrong.
 
Top Cat said:
Chaz will be ending soon. Trump will not. You own his worthless ass.
Click to expand...

In that he seems to be the only one with the balls to speak out against attempts to tear down our country, I’ll happily own that. This was never just about the Confederacy as we’re seeing now. Our choice is between believing that, while the US is far from perfect, it is basically good and worth preserving as founded and those that feel this country is irredeemable and needs to be dismantled to be replaced with who knows what.
 
Court Jester said:
Upside to all of this anarchy is it means Donald Trump is going to win. So the last laugh will be on the protesting anarchy loving left.
Click to expand...

If you’re right, and I hope you are, can you even imagine all the exploding heads? It’ll be worse than 2016 and that’s saying something.
 


It wouldn't be an illegal order. Here's their oath: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed"

BLM is a domestic enemy intent on overthrowing our government. Their founders are trained Marxist organizers. This is an insurrection. It's is exactly what the insurrection act is for. There is a core group of Marxists pulling the strings on these willing dupes to bring down our government to make way for a Marxist style of socialism. They don't care about black lives , or any other race that stands in there way. Their goal is to use class warfare to reform our system. The violence is one of their favorite tactics to affect change.
 
Moot said:
Didn't Occupy Wall Street do autonomous zones, too?

I don't think autonomous zones are an effective method of protest...not to mention they're unsanitary....especially during a plague.
Click to expand...

It's not good, that's for sure. OWS did a bunch of stuff, I think there was a fundamental issue there that could have been discussed. But there was no leadership, and no real plans, no coherent message, and too many competing groups within it. And they were rather disgusting. I think CHOP suffers from the same thing, and it why it will ultimately fall apart. But doing this in middle of a global pandemic really runs the risk of exacerbating Covid.

I don't think these "autonomous" zones will last much longer.
 
Nap said:
I am thinking it is a Poe. The posts are too much like a cartoonish depiction of the Right from a Lefty. It would also be strange for someone that believes like they do to actually be from Seattle, Washington of all places.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he really is that way because he is in or from Seattle surrounded by the same type of people who think creating a police free area is a good idea. :lol:
 

Holy ****, dude, you must love the taste of foot. I pity your wife...if you have one.
 
X Factor said:
If you’re right, and I hope you are, can you even imagine all the exploding heads? It’ll be worse than 2016 and that’s saying something.
Click to expand...

Expect it to happen. These younger liberals have been conditioned to think and act like spoiled 2 year olds over two full generations now. They are incapable of processing disappointment, acknowledging accountability, never being told the word NO, and actually believing they are special because they are indoctrinated to be victims. Just like that child who is told it's bedtime and complains "that's not fair!" When everyone gets a trophy even for losing, no wonder they act EXACTLY like a 2 year old emotionally. Throwing tantrums is just the beginning.

We all know the best way to deal with a spoiled child and it isn't saying "no" 100 more times and then putting them on time out. Somebody needs a spanking... a hard spanking.

Check out this video and hear the voices. You can just see the crazy in the eyes of these adults who speak, react, and feel like infants. On one hand it is funny to point to them and laugh, but in reality it is actually very scary. A lost generation, and chances are good WHEN Trump wins again their heads will explode, but probably in more violence like we are seeing right now.

How does an adult actually allow the words of "not my president" come out of their mouths? YES, he is YOUR president even if YOU didn't vote for him. Same way Obama was our president for 8 years.

Liberals are clearly people with some switches thrown the wrong way.

 
Last edited:

Everything looks like Marxism even when it's not. Michelle Nickerson did a pretty interesting dive into this phenomenon in her monograph Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right, where many of the social and political changes that were occurring in or outside of California were conflated with political or intellectual Marxism.

Marxists look at the class struggle as the ultimate issue of History (capital h) and dismiss issues related to gender, race, sexuality, disability, whatever as distractions intentionally created by the upper crusts to keep the working classes divided, feuding, and exploited.

The Marxist view of History and society has tended to lead to conflict between minorities and Marxists, because Marxists tend to dismiss the grievances and experiences of those folks and tell them to focus their attention on the class struggle instead.
 
Last edited:

If I recall correctly as well, at times you also had an issue where men in those zones were sexually assaulting women and given the group dynamics involved, were not good at supporting women's safety or self-policing group behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…