• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Joe Biden is full of lies

What he should have done is tell his supporters to stay home instead of egging them on to violently counter protest.
He should have given them ALL say 4 hours to disperse and leave and after that broke out the water cannons, riot squads and handcuffs.

Sent from my Life One X3 using Tapatalk
 
He should have given them ALL say 4 hours to disperse and leave and after that broke out the water cannons, riot squads and handcuffs.
Hong Kong style?
The iron boot is what authoritarians do.
 
If Donald Trump had anything at all in his scrotum (or cranium) and was capable of doing more than obsessively posting empty thunder threats on Twitter, a valid option would have been to invoke the Insurrection Act and federalize national guard units in the States where the governors and mayors refuse to protect the property, businesses, income and lives of their tax paying citizens. It is absolutely unfathomable that elected and or appointed officials have stood by and allowed these violence terrorist who have seized on any reason for any excuse to loot, burn, riot, interrupt commerce and steal carte blanche .

Sent from my Life One X3 using Tapatalk
Um, a Guv would have to request that Orangey invoke the IA. The last time that happened was Los Angeles in 1992. We have nothing happening on that scale currently.

sent from my media pc using a keyboard
 
Um, a Guv would have to request that Orangey invoke the IA. The last time that happened was Los Angeles in 1992. We have nothing happening on that scale currently.

sent from my media pc using a keyboard
A governor does not have to request the president invoke the insurrection act. Didn't you dumb asses watch Fraggle Rock as kids? The insurrection act exists solely as insurance for when governors won't act.

Sent from my Life One X3 using Tapatalk
 
Nope, not true.

If you want to sway me, telling me it is "not true" will not do it. I provided examples contrary to your statements. You have yet to show me that President Trump has spoken to governors and mayors with respect and offered help in the same spirit.
 
It does not matter that the mayors and governors have made mistakes as far as how a president should behave. Derision does not lead to solving issues; all it does is breed more contempt.

Then the mayors need to get their city under control.
ol yea lets not hold them accountable for the destruction since it is their friggen job.

let's blame the guy 3000 miles away that has nothing to do with it.
typical bull**** leftist drivel.

as i said logical and reasoned escapes a leftist sphere of comprehension.
 
Then the mayors need to get their city under control.
ol yea lets not hold them accountable for the destruction since it is their friggen job.

let's blame the guy 3000 miles away that has nothing to do with it.
typical bull**** leftist drivel.

as i said logical and reasoned escapes a leftist sphere of comprehension.

Trump is saying that the same issues will only continue under Biden if Biden becomes president, and yet you are saying the President is not responsible. Which one is it?

Also, I never said mayors and governors should not be held accountable. That is done through the people in their cities and states voting. That is not part of the President's job. Part of his job is to work with officials in our country to solve problems. Attacking elected officials is contrary to those efforts.
 
Last edited:
Then the mayors need to get their city under control.
ol yea lets not hold them accountable for the destruction since it is their friggen job.

let's blame the guy 3000 miles away that has nothing to do with it.
typical bull**** leftist drivel.

as i said logical and reasoned escapes a leftist sphere of comprehension.

I'm going to be in Portland and Seattle in the next week or so. Shopping areas to buy retirement property to build on.

I'm gonna do some reporting for DP.

See how my footage compares to the media's.

Should be interesting.

Stay tuned!
 

This is trump's America! He's done nothing but stoke fear and division since before he was elected.

Now regarding Biden:

Did he say his father was born in Germany? Did he say he knew nothing about payoffs to porn stars and prostitutes and then let his lawyer swing for it?

How about that wall that Mexico will pay for?

Are you sure you've started a thread on the right liar?
 
While Joe Biden was sitting silent in his basement after the Floyd shooting June 1st, President Trump attempted to take action to restore peace in blue state cities.

He was told his help would be interference, unwelcome, illegal and some called him overreaching and acting like an authoritarian dictator... Now today, we see the same people deny that this is BLUE STATE AMERICA'S problem, and attempt to scapegoat it as Trump's America problem. What liars!

They must think we, who support this president, were born yesterday...

Trump offers federal help to lawless blue states

What is America'''s National Guard, and why does Donald Trump want them to break up the George Floyd protests? - ABC News

Know you were not born "yesterday"
- I can agree that the mayors and sometimes Governors of the States having protest/riot problems have mishandled the situation.
- Yes, President Trump has offered to help by sending in forces.

- How long after the Floyd shooting did President Trump make a statement out police use of force that may have contributed to death.
- Has President Trump made any statement regarding police and the use of force of shooting unarmed men.
- Has President Trump made any statement to try and calm the situation besides, we are reading to send in the troops.

imo, President Trump confrontational style of dealing with events, name calling State elected leaders, does little to calm the situation.

I also believe the Mayor's and Governors have been slow to react and underestimated the situation.
 
Um, a Guv would have to request that Orangey invoke the IA. The last time that happened was Los Angeles in 1992. We have nothing happening on that scale currently.

sent from my media pc using a keyboard
10*U.S.C.*§§ 331–335; amended 2006, 2007. The stupidity of some of you people absolutely staggers me and it bothers me that you're in America

Sent from my Life One X3 using Tapatalk
 
Putin is a poisoner.
 
Then the mayors need to get their city under control.
ol yea lets not hold them accountable for the destruction since it is their friggen job.

let's blame the guy 3000 miles away that has nothing to do with it.
typical bull**** leftist drivel.

as i said logical and reasoned escapes a leftist sphere of comprehension.
That guy 3000 miles away is rooting for chaos, since he believes chaos helps his re-election. How do I know? Kelly Ann Conway said so.
 
Know you were not born "yesterday"
- I can agree that the mayors and sometimes Governors of the States having protest/riot problems have mishandled the situation.
- Yes, President Trump has offered to help by sending in forces.

- How long after the Floyd shooting did President Trump make a statement out police use of force that may have contributed to death.
- Has President Trump made any statement regarding police and the use of force of shooting unarmed men.
- Has President Trump made any statement to try and calm the situation besides, we are reading to send in the troops.

imo, President Trump confrontational style of dealing with events, name calling State elected leaders, does little to calm the situation.

I also believe the Mayor's and Governors have been slow to react and underestimated the situation.

Funny stuff, seeing that it's the Democratic Party who has been confrontational since the day he has taken the oath, and they and their boot licking sycophants have called this duly elected president every vicious name in the book but I will finish by saying that I admire your effort to have a somewhat honest discussion.
 
No they're not.

Yes, they are...

Link posted above, but here it is again, in the event you did not see it; Trump's approval rating with Black voters soars by 60% during RNC: poll

President Trump’s approval rating among Black voters jumped by 60% during the Republican National Committee even as Democrats and progressives sought to brand the Republican president as racist.
A HarrisX-Hill poll released Friday showed Mr. Trump’s net approval with Black voters from Aug. 22-25, which included the first two days of the RNC, rose to 24%, up from 15% in the pollster’s Aug. 8-11 survey.
.
 
A governor does not have to request the president invoke the insurrection act. Didn't you dumb asses watch Fraggle Rock as kids? The insurrection act exists solely as insurance for when governors won't act.

Sent from my Life One X3 using Tapatalk
Substantively, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy the military domestically in four sets of circumstances:

Where the president receives a request for assistance from the legislature of a state that is experiencing “an insurrection ... against its government[,]” or that state’s governor if its legislature cannot be convened, under 10 U.S.C. § 251.
Where the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” under 10 U.S.C. § 252.
Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” either “so hinders the execution of the laws of [a] State, and of the United States within th[at] State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(1)—in which cases, the statute notes, that state “shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Where “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy ... opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws,” under 10 U.S.C. § 253(2).
Most invocations of the Insurrection Act have taken place pursuant to § 251 at the request of state officials, including the most recent—namely, President George H.W. Bush’s 1992 deployment of federal troops to suppress the Los Angeles riots. (That said, it’s not entirely clear which provision of the Insurrection Act Bush was relying on, as only California’s governor, not its legislature, requested the intervention and Bush’s proclamation and related executive order do not specify.) Section 252, meanwhile, has been applied primarily to situations of armed uprising, rampant violent criminality and widespread rioting. By contrast, § 253 has most commonly been used in the context of civil rights to authorize the use of federal troops to enforce school desegregation and defend civil rights activists.

Together, these provisions delegate an immense amount of authority to the president. This is amplified by the fact that several of these provisions—especially § 252—hinge on the president’s subjective evaluation of the prevailing circumstances. What’s more, every one of these provisions employs broad and undefined terms like “unlawful obstructions” and “domestic violence” that allow the president significant leeway in interpreting when and how they should be applied.

This does not, however, mean that these provisions are blank checks. Even absent a request for assistance from a state government, the Insurrection Act seems to expect that the president will invoke its authority only where certain conditions are met. And it’s not at all clear that the current circumstances meet these standards.

For § 252 to be available, for example, the president is supposed to conclude that civil unrest has made it “impracticable” for the courts and broader justice system to operate normally. Yet there are few signs that the justice system has ceased to be effective, even in areas that have experienced looting and violence. In D.C., the closest one can get is a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to close early on June 1 and 2 due to its proximity to the White House and related protests. Similarly, § 253(1) is intended for use in responding to violations of the Equal Protection Clause. But it’s unclear what protected class of persons’ civil rights may have been duly threatened by the recent unrest so as to reach this threshold.
 
As for § 253(2), Trump’s remarks did not hint at what federal authority those engaged in civil unrest might be obstructing, but he repeatedly referenced the need to protect individuals’ “life and property.” Both, however, are entitlements that the states are primarily responsible for protecting, not the federal government. Indeed, most of the activities that Trump likely sees as threatening life and property aren’t violations of federal law at all. Moreover, § 253(2)’s requirement that civil unrest “oppos[e] or obstruc[t]” federal authority has special import when one considers that § 253 was enacted as part of post-Civil War legislation aimed at ensuring that southern states respect the rights given to black Americans by federal law. In this context, it clearly seems to anticipate a more deliberate effort at thwarting federal legal rights than simple unlawfulness. But it’s not clear what those currently engaged in civil unrest have done to rise to this threshold. All told, invoking § 253(2) could open the door to using the Insurrection Act to enforce laws on all sorts of conduct usually left to state regulation—an outcome that appears quite in tension with the federalism concerns clearly motivating many of the safeguards contained within the Insurrection Act.


Can Trump Use the Insurrection Act to Deploy Troops to American Streets? - Lawfare
 
As for § 253(2), Trump’s remarks did not hint at what federal authority those engaged in civil unrest might be obstructing, but he repeatedly referenced the need to protect individuals’ “life and property.” Both, however, are entitlements that the states are primarily responsible for protecting, not the federal government. Indeed, most of the activities that Trump likely sees as threatening life and property aren’t violations of federal law at all. Moreover, § 253(2)’s requirement that civil unrest “oppos[e] or obstruc[t]” federal authority has special import when one considers that § 253 was enacted as part of post-Civil War legislation aimed at ensuring that southern states respect the rights given to black Americans by federal law. In this context, it clearly seems to anticipate a more deliberate effort at thwarting federal legal rights than simple unlawfulness. But it’s not clear what those currently engaged in civil unrest have done to rise to this threshold. All told, invoking § 253(2) could open the door to using the Insurrection Act to enforce laws on all sorts of conduct usually left to state regulation—an outcome that appears quite in tension with the federalism concerns clearly motivating many of the safeguards contained within the Insurrection Act.


Can Trump Use the Insurrection Act to Deploy Troops to American Streets? - Lawfare

Yes he can if any of 4 situations apply. If you look it up I'd say he is within the law if the mayors and governors continue to refuse to stop the violence.
 
Yes he can if any of 4 situations apply. If you look it up I'd say he is within the law if the mayors and governors continue to refuse to stop the violence.
Pick one provision, make your case.
 
Back
Top Bottom