Re: 2020 Elections - Enough Divisiveness Already
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:57 am
Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
Mr David is a large man who approached them when they were engaged with rioters, defending Federal property.
Posse Comitatus applies to the military, not to Fed law enforcement agencies.CU77 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:04 am And what's amazing to me is there doesn't seem to be a legal remedy for this that anyone is proposing.
How do Trump's invading thugs not violate Posse Comitatus??
It seems to me that SCOTUS needs to weigh in ASAP. Are we a police state or not?
What say you, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh?
The body language is so stark. Mitch looks like he’s trying to posture like a man with any self confidence trying to prove something to himself and everyone else unconvincingly and BO just pimping naturally like he’s about to go kick some a**.
You have selective outrage. Defending roger stone over a navy vet. It’s a joke. Spoken like someone who hasn’t seen what he’s talking about in decades. Retirement must be good.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 3:02 amMr David is a large man who approached them when they were engaged with rioters, defending Federal property.
They did not approach him, or seek to detain or arrest him. They wanted him out of their way.
The first Marshall pushed him away. When he didn't leave, the second Marshall struck him 3 times with his baton until he finally backed away, after being maced. He was interfering with them doing their assigned duties. He foolishly inserted himself into a dangerous situation.
It may be a secret to you, but they were US Marshalls. It has been referred to the DoJ IG for investigation.
Note the tactical garb worn by FBI agents arriving at Roger Stone's home for his pre-dawn arrest.
I don't recall any anguish in this forum then about the militarization of Federal agents. Selective outrage.
Even with the posture, if Mitch had a fitted suit he'd look a thousand times more composed. It's weird how ingrained the ill fitting suit / Navy Blazer + khaki culture is in DC.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:44 amThe body language is so stark. Mitch looks like he’s trying to posture like a man with any self confidence trying to prove something to himself and everyone else unconvincingly and BO just pimping naturally like he’s about to go kick some a**.
Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:47 amYou have selective outrage. Defending roger stone over a navy vet. It’s a joke. Spoken like someone who hasn’t seen what he’s talking about in decades. Retirement must be good.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 3:02 amMr David is a large man who approached them when they were engaged with rioters, defending Federal property.
They did not approach him, or seek to detain or arrest him. They wanted him out of their way.
The first Marshall pushed him away. When he didn't leave, the second Marshall struck him 3 times with his baton until he finally backed away, after being maced. He was interfering with them doing their assigned duties. He foolishly inserted himself into a dangerous situation.
It may be a secret to you, but they were US Marshalls. It has been referred to the DoJ IG for investigation.
Note the tactical garb worn by FBI agents arriving at Roger Stone's home for his pre-dawn arrest.
I don't recall any anguish in this forum then about the militarization of Federal agents. Selective outrage.
Funny thing is, that is one seriously nice suit that Obama is wearing. McConnell, on the other hand, looks about like I look in a suit.....Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:44 amThe body language is so stark. Mitch looks like he’s trying to posture like a man with any self confidence trying to prove something to himself and everyone else unconvincingly and BO just pimping naturally like he’s about to go kick some a**.
We have 100%, absolutely discussed the militarization of the police over the years here. We've discussed equipment and tactics on multiple occasions.
Try being honest. That's no defense of Stone. It's pointing out the selective outrage in this forum about law enforcement.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:47 amYou have selective outrage. Defending roger stone over a navy vet. It’s a joke. Spoken like someone who hasn’t seen what he’s talking about in decades. Retirement must be good.old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 3:02 amMr David is a large man who approached them when they were engaged with rioters, defending Federal property.
They did not approach him, or seek to detain or arrest him. They wanted him out of their way.
The first Marshall pushed him away. When he didn't leave, the second Marshall struck him 3 times with his baton until he finally backed away, after being maced. He was interfering with them doing their assigned duties. He foolishly inserted himself into a dangerous situation.
It may be a secret to you, but they were US Marshalls. It has been referred to the DoJ IG for investigation.
Note the tactical garb worn by FBI agents arriving at Roger Stone's home for his pre-dawn arrest.
I don't recall any anguish in this forum then about the militarization of Federal agents. Selective outrage.
IMO federal law enforcement will do whatever it wants. If I'm not wrong didn't Obama's feds over rule Arizona State rights concerning how they dealt with illegal immigrants? The nation is now at a tipping point in what kind of power we give to federal law enforcement. It gets pretty dicey. If local Portland law enforcement can't protect federal government buildings from being attacked and vandalized, why would any rational person think that the feds would sit by and let it happen? The same would be true for any R or D administration. I go back to my original position, the feds will do in a law enforcement mode whatever the hell they want, wherever they want. If some of you folks actually think that states rights matter... your deluding yourselves. My son is a FAM, he knows this fact up close and personal. He tells me this often. When they have orders from higher up they can pretty much do whatever they are instructed to do. I don't believe they work under an understanding of what a lawful order is. That is not the case if you want to keep your job. If the law should be changed, that is another argument. The feds have the power and the authority and they will use it. Who is going to stop them?a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:18 pmWe have 100%, absolutely discussed the militarization of the police over the years here. We've discussed equipment and tactics on multiple occasions.
What we didn't do, you are correct, is clutch our pearls when the tables were turned on a rich white millionaire in Roger Stone, as horrified Republicans pretended that because Stone is rich, the police should serve him tea, rub his feet, and give his wife a facial while serving the warrant.
Wanna know how Republican voters REALLY feel about the "militarization" of police?
Ask any of them here about budget cuts to police departments.
The most famous example is Kennedy sending down the Federal Troops. I agree that the Fed must trump States. We signed up for that back in 1787.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:53 pm IMO federal law enforcement will do whatever it wants. If I'm not wrong didn't Obama's feds over rule Arizona State rights concerning how they dealt with illegal immigrants? The nation is now at a tipping point in what kind of power we give to federal law enforcement. It gets pretty dicey. If local Portland law enforcement can't protect federal government buildings from being attacked and vandalized, why would any rational person think that the feds would sit by and let it happen? The same would be true for any R or D administration.
a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:23 pmThe most famous example is Kennedy sending down the Federal Troops. I agree that the Fed must trump States. We signed up for that back in 1787.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:53 pm IMO federal law enforcement will do whatever it wants. If I'm not wrong didn't Obama's feds over rule Arizona State rights concerning how they dealt with illegal immigrants? The nation is now at a tipping point in what kind of power we give to federal law enforcement. It gets pretty dicey. If local Portland law enforcement can't protect federal government buildings from being attacked and vandalized, why would any rational person think that the feds would sit by and let it happen? The same would be true for any R or D administration.
I'm not begrudging Trump's desire for order---if that's what he actually wants. And yep, protect Federal property.
I'm simply saying two things. One, this is a campaign ad for Trump...he doesn't care about order per se.
And two, a better path is to let the kids get bored. Frankly, blocking WiFi in the area would scatter the dangerous idiots 100 times faster than Federal Troops will.
Trump is forcing recalcitrant (D) Governors & Mayors to do their jobs & protect their citizens.a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:23 pmThe most famous example is Kennedy sending down the Federal Troops. I agree that the Fed must trump States. We signed up for that back in 1787.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:53 pm IMO federal law enforcement will do whatever it wants. If I'm not wrong didn't Obama's feds over rule Arizona State rights concerning how they dealt with illegal immigrants? The nation is now at a tipping point in what kind of power we give to federal law enforcement. It gets pretty dicey. If local Portland law enforcement can't protect federal government buildings from being attacked and vandalized, why would any rational person think that the feds would sit by and let it happen? The same would be true for any R or D administration.
I'm not begrudging Trump's desire for order---if that's what he actually wants. And yep, protect Federal property.
I'm simply saying two things. One, this is a campaign ad for Trump...he doesn't care about order per se.