This morning Trump declared defacto martial law because of one broken windshield, do you support it?

[Lord of Planar]

YOUR side created this situation. Here’s one of your prime economists, bragging about it:

Bullshit. we have a legal immigration system, and it works.

Republicans wanted a sub-class of laborers who are denied welfare that lawful residents are entitled to.

Then why is it democrats why cry "who will pick our crops" like they did in 1865 when we no longer had slaves?

You created the bureaucratic red tape that arbitrarily made them all “illegal”.

My girlfriend came here legally from Cuba with a Cuban passport, and permission. She got a work visa, and applied to stay. She is on the correct path to citizenship, and freely flies to Cuba and back at will to see family, and can do so without fear, because she is legal.

You’re so mad they didn’t fill out your big government paperwork, you launch these crazy raids all over blue cities to provoke violence.

By doing the will of the people who elected him into office? this illegal chaos has gone too far. This pendulum is swinging back hard because of it.

Now you send in the marines with live ammo to quell the justified outrage you produced.

the left has rioted for too many reason, harming fellow Americans. past practices have not worked. What solution do you have that stands a chance of working?

You are an enabler, and part of the problem.

It’s a manufactured crisis of violence against our people. It’s sick, disgusting.

It is not a manufactured crisis. The danger of rioters is real. Wake up.

 

[eohrnberger]

Trump was planning on creating riots before he was even elected. He talked about it.

I have already responded to this. Simple repetition doesn't strengthen your argument.

He intended to escalate, to provoke violence.

This just more of the same.

You are defending a horrible person, someone who inflicts terror on the American public because it helps him grab more personal power.

and still more.

You can’t doxx police officers, they work for us.

Whether someone 'works for us' or not, they can still be doxxed. You are wrong on that point.

We pay them to enforce the law, we need them to identify themselves. Otherwise, anyone can impersonate an officer and kidnap people, this is a recipe for chaos and violence.

Yeah, I think you've tried to float this fantasy of ICE not identifying themselves as part of their enforcement action before. It doesn't play any stronger on repeat.

 

[jaypatriot]

Bullshit. we have a legal immigration system, and it works.

Then why is it democrats why cry "who will pick our crops" like they did in 1865 when we no longer had slaves?

My girlfriend came here legally from Cuba with a Cuban passport, and permission. She got a work visa, and applied to stay. She is on the correct path to citizenship, and freely flies to Cuba and back at will to see family, and can do so without fear, because she is legal.

By doing the will of the people who elected him into office? this illegal chaos has gone too far. This pendulum is swinging back hard because of it.

the left has rioted for too many reason, harming fellow Americans. past practices have not worked. What solution do you have that stands a chance of working?

You are an enabler, and part of the problem.

It is not a manufactured crisis. The danger of rioters is real. Wake up.

Great rebuttals to an 'out of touch' Liberal who wants violent protesters to control the streets.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Those few people who are violent should be arrested.

The woman just trying to get home who was shot is horrible.

"Those few" is a lot more numerous than you think imo.

 

[eohrnberger]

Great rebuttals to an 'out of touch' Liberal who wants violent protesters to control the streets.

Anytime the left doesn't get what they want . . .
Schumer being a poster boy for the same . . .

Chuck Schumer’s threat to justices just new low in Democrats’ SCOTUS bullying

Sorry, Charlie: Your excuse for threatening Supreme Court justices doesn’t cut it. New York’s own Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, tried Thursday to walk back the direct threats he made t…

nypost.com

They are the same old Democrats which they've always been, only they are being far more obvious about it in recent history.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Trump was planning on creating riots before he was even elected. He talked about it.


He intended to escalate, to provoke violence. You are defending a horrible person, someone who inflicts terror on the American public because it helps him grab more personal power.

You can’t doxx police officers, they work for us. We pay them to enforce the law, we need them to identify themselves. Otherwise, anyone can impersonate an officer and kidnap people, this is a recipe for chaos and violence.

Doxxing officers allows people to track them at home and perhaps lie in wait and ambush them. Or SWAT them. It happens.

 

[Bodi]

They always believe their lying talking heads. They are so brainwashed it is sad.

I agree... but so is the other extreme.

.

 

[Absentglare]

I have already responded to this. Simple repetition doesn't strengthen your argument.


This just more of the same.


and still more.


Whether someone 'works for us' or not, they can still be doxxed. You are wrong on that point.


Yeah, I think you've tried to float this fantasy of ICE not identifying themselves as part of their enforcement action before. It doesn't play any stronger on repeat.

You’re the one calling it “doxxing” for them to identify themselves. We need to be able to identify law enforcement officers, it is a requirement for them to conduct operations. Otherwise, we can’t tell them apart from armed, masked kidnappers. It makes the situation far more dangerous for everyone involved.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You’re the one calling it “doxxing” for them to identify themselves. We need to be able to identify law enforcement officers, it is a requirement for them to conduct operations. Otherwise, we can’t tell them apart from armed, masked kidnappers. It makes the situation far more dangerous for everyone involved.

You know what the problem is with that? If they know the name and face, they will find the address and family of the officer and God only knows what they will do---from a simple protest at their home to arson and outright murder. The person being arrested will get the name of the arresting officer when they are arraigned, an entire crowd doesn't need to know their face at all.

 

[trixare4kids]

You’re the one calling it “doxxing” for them to identify themselves. We need to be able to identify law enforcement officers, it is a requirement for them to conduct operations. Otherwise, we can’t tell them apart from armed, masked kidnappers. It makes the situation far more dangerous for everyone involved.

Legally, there's no clear federal law prohibiting ICE officers to unmask themselves as long as they properly identify themselves as law enforcement when required.

Since you're so "outraged" call your congressman/woman and ask them to take up a bill to change the law. Or you can stop whining. Your choice.

 

[Absentglare]

Legally, there's no clear federal law prohibiting ICE officers to unmask themselves as long as they properly identify themselves as law enforcement when required.

Since you're so "outraged" call your congressman/woman and ask them to take up a bill to change the law. Or you can stop whining. Your choice.

If masked, unidentified paramilitary thugs show up to put you into an unmarked van, you can legally shoot them in self defense.

If you think that is good, you must want ICE agents shot.

 

[eohrnberger]

You’re the one calling it “doxxing” for them to identify themselves.

No, that's two completely different things and you and I know it. "Come On Man!"
Sheesh.

We need to be able to identify law enforcement officers, it is a requirement for them to conduct operations.

I've responded to this argument from you before. Check back in your list of posts in which you've been quoted.

Otherwise, we can’t tell them apart from armed, masked kidnappers. It makes the situation far more dangerous for everyone involved.

 

[trixare4kids]

If masked, unidentified paramilitary thugs show up to put you into an unmarked van, you can legally shoot them in self defense.

It is exactly what I wrote above. No law against ICE wearing a mask while they are performing their raids.

If you think that is good, you must want ICE agents shot.

Oh for the love of God, get a grip.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

This morning, Trump declared defacto martial law.

Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.whitehouse.gov

He now is following through on what he said before the election, that he would turn the military against his political opponents. Do you support it, yes or no?

NO.

 

[Absentglare]

It is exactly what I wrote above. No law against ICE wearing a mask while they are performing their raids.


Oh for the love of God, get a grip.

Trump dictated that all masks are illegal and Trump believes he dictates the law. Where is the exception for ICE?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Doxxing officers allows people to track them at home and perhaps lie in wait and ambush them. Or SWAT them. It happens.

Exactly! The Democrat members in government, both state/local and federal, once again showing their true colors. It is my considered (and previously well-stated) opinion that the Democrat leadership is more about maintaining political power than anything else. Hence their overt and covert support for flooding the nation with loyal future Democrat voters.

The Democrat Party was the party of slavery back pre- and post-Civil War. The Republican Party was founded on more classical liberal ideals and after Lincoln was elected, it was the Party that pushed for freeing slaves. The KKK was founded by Southern Democrats who had fought for slavery, and it was primarily in the South where laws pushed for "separate but equal," while requiring tests and poll taxes to vote knowing most Black Americans in the South would not be able to meet those "requirements."

As may have been mentioned, Jim Crow lasted up to and for a while after the Civil Rights Era, when Lyndon Johnson opted to push John F. Kennedy's civil rights laws after his death allegedly stating this would have those "N-words voting Democrat forever." BTW, there was never any switch by racist Democrats as claimed, and people forget that the most oppressive crime bill affecting Blacks was the baby of Joe Biden back when a Senator.