Politics XXXVI (will catch up to superbowls soon)

[Orogun01]

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

 

I wonder at the Americans this is having the intended effect on.

I interpret that as "I'm going to get Biblical on yo ass"

[Malcador]

 

Apparently more fencing around the WH to keep it safe.  Not that it's really been challenged that much in the past 3 nights - cops have controlled Lafayette Park at will.

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

 

I wonder at the Americans this is having the intended effect on.

Reality TV seems to be what he does best. Christian on demand? Might convince somebody. They'll probably close their eyes too when he breaks each and every one of the ten commandments, demanding they get renegotiated, because they were treating Americans unfairly.

 

[Azdeus]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

Reality TV seems to be what he does best. Christian on demand? Might convince somebody. They'll probably close their eyes too when he breaks each and every one of the ten commandments, demanding they get renegotiated, because they were treating Americanshim unfairly.

 

fix'd

[Raithe]

6 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

I interpret that as "I'm going to get Biblical on yo ass"

Well one of the local priests in that area has already come out with a whole set of "Seeing Trump have protestors tear gassed and pushed out of the way by police so he could have a photo-op holding a bible in front of a church seems a little like blasphemy to me.."

 

Also:

[Gorgon]

is he allowed to deploy the military on US soil against US citizwns though ? or is doing so just bad optics and that's why no one ever does it. 

[Zoraptor]

He'd be using the underlined passage as justification. [Hang on, has the 'remove formatting' button gone now, because I loathe dozens of dangling links making my posts look untidy? Honestly, Xenforo is going to end up with just a 'submit reply' button in a couple of years at this rate. Seldom used feature bro, just stick it into notepad bro...]

Quote

 

Whenever there is an insurrection in any

State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

Whenever 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, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)
so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the 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; or
(2)
opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

 

I would not have thought that the criteria were met, but then I'm not an inveterate narcissist with a fragile ego. Would be interesting to see if the army actually obeyed any order to act, but chances are this is just limp richard posturing from Trump trying to look 'strong' (like clearing the WH environs for a walkaround because China made fun of him cowering in a bunker over the weekend) rather than something he's actually going to do.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Gorth]

Maybe it was what someone had in mind when they added the second amendment. A well regulated militia to protect against the federal government?

 

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

[Hang on, has the 'remove formatting' button gone now, because I loathe dozens of dangling links making my posts look untidy? Honestly, Xenforo is going to end up with just a 'submit reply' button in a couple of years at this rate. Seldom used feature bro, just stick it into notepad bro...]

Hmm, not sure. But whenever you paste text with garbage attached, be it links or CSS leftovers, you should see a notice at the bottom along the lines of "pasted as 'rich' text" that also gives you the option of converting to plain text, to the same effect. On desktop, at least.

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gorgon said:

is he allowed to deploy the military on US soil against US citizwns though ? or is doing so just bad optics and that's why no one ever does it. 

It's been done before. Heck George Washington raised an army and invaded western Pennsylvania during the so-called whiskey rebellion. Which, ironically enough was over taxes and came just 14 years after he led the Continental Army in a war against the British that was started by taxes. It was also done by James Buchanan when US Marines rooted John Brown and his abolitionists out of the Federal Armory at Harper's Ferry. Lincoln used the Army a little heavy handedly in the North during the Civil War, something he is still castigated for today as much as then. After the war and because of that Posse Comitatus was passed to put a stop to using the military as police. But it still happens. America's first "mass school shooting" was Army National Guard gunning down unarmed protesters at Kent State University in 1970. During Hurricane Katrina in LA & MS the regular Army was deployed for "relief assistance" which including looting control along with evacuation and aid. While I was in the service the Marines at Camp Pendleton were deployed to help with wildfire control. Although I knew some guys that did that and they said they spend most of their time cutting and digging firebreaks. 

So that Rubicon was been crossed multiple times. But what Trump is suggesting, using the military as police is technically illegal. Unless he finds a way to call this an insurrection. Which brings up this: Trump says he'll designate antifa a terror organization, blames group for violence at George Floyd protests

But really he's just talking out of his rear. He can't do most of the things he promises to do and will find out after he said it. Much to his disappointment.

[Guard Dog]

Gun sales surge 80% in May, says research

You guys want a stock tip? Sturm Ruger. The most popular gun maker in the USA. Durable high quality firearms at moderate prices. I own several. they are good. Barack Obama MADE that company. They boomed during his 8 years despite never really doing anything on gun control other than threaten. In fact if I were a stock holder and became President I might try that s--t myself! If he is a RGR share holder I take back everything I ever said about him. He IS a mastermind. Anyway RGR got price bumps after 9-11, the Baltimore riots, COVID-19, and this current nonsense. Think about it, either Biden wins or Trump wins in November. Both are incompetent buffoons what will drift from crisis to crisis. Biden might even put gun control back on the menu. Either way RGR is a good bet.

[Raithe]

 

 

Not completely accurate in the historical sense, but enough to make a point in general...

Edited June 2, 2020 by Raithe

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

So that Rubicon was been crossed multiple times. But what Trump is suggesting, using the military as police is technically illegal. Unless he finds a way to call this an insurrection. Which brings up this: Trump says he'll designate antifa a terror organization, blames group for violence at George Floyd protests

But really he's just talking out of his rear. He can't do most of the things he promises to do and will find out after he said it. Much to his disappointment.

So it's been done before for various reasons -including rioting- but you don't think Trump could do it?

The US Code section quoted by Zoraptor essentially amounts to "it can't be done, except when it can be", which is a good summary for all restrictions on state power, ever. It's just a matter of what the current president, king, princeps, prime minister or whatever feels he can get away with and that is entirely circumstantial. Whether the US has degenerated past a point where military crackdown can be imposed is debatable, but don't think that there will ever be a dearth of sages happy to engage in ex post facto legal gymnastics to "legitimize" whatever.

"That'd be illegal!" said no tyrant ever.

[Gromnir]

everybody is a Constitutional law expert?

*shrug*

regardless folks have not been paying attention the last few years as trump violated Constitution on numerous occasions. for chrissakes, he is funding his wall boondoggle with money Congress says he should not be using for an emergency Congress has explicit stated ain't an emergency. so much for the power o' the purse and limits o' Congressional grants o' authority. doesn't matter what is legal if the only remedy is impeachment. 

william barr is the guy who is legitimizing what trump is doing, and barr, for all his faults, is no idiot. barr's reading o' the Constitution is fringe but not wholly singular and he is using this moment and this President to redefine the scope o' executive power for all time, and you should be frightened by that fact. as we has mentioned previous in this thread, barr views the entirety o' executive power as vested in one office: The President of the United States of America. as such, the notion o' independent executive branch watch dogs such as inspector generals who answer to Congress and the like is in fact antithetical to the Constitution 'cause their authority comes from the President. can't have doj investigate or prosecute President for same reason as the authority to do such investigations necessarily comes from the President and is unthinkable for President to be subject to investigations unless the President allows such. 

barr has public stated in the past, and nobody understood full/fool implications 'til now, that the Constitutional method for curbing executive authority is singular: impeachment. executive branch cannot do anything to stop President by the very nature o' executive branch authority and the Court should not 'cause abuses o' executive power is ultimate a political question. such a position from barr, while fringe, is further complicated by the almost uniquely barr belief that POTUS need not acquiesce to impeachment investigations undertaken by Congress. nobody saw that coming until barr took the reigns at doj. everybody just assumed President were subject to such investigations 'cause every President and every Court had agreed that impeachment were unique and President had to bend complete before Congress when impeachment were invoked. the recent ukraine kerfuffle makes such less certain as just that question is criminal slow working its way through the Courts. 

we spent the past +3 years detailing on numerous occasions how the Constitution prevents trump from doing ____________. such a recognition doesn't matter if the only remedy is impeachment. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

58 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

 

we spent the past +3 years detailing on numerous occasions how the Constitution prevents trump from doing ____________. such a recognition doesn't matter if the only remedy is impeachment. 

HA! Good Fun!

Not the ONLY remedy. An injunction from a Court will work as well putting a temporary and maybe even permanent stop to shenanigans. As long as a party with standing brings a petition.A state AG can do that. Also correct me if I'm wrong but Trump was speaking of mobilizing the NG. Only a governor of a state can do that correct?

[Gromnir]

26 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Not the ONLY remedy. An injunction from a Court will work as well putting a temporary and maybe even permanent stop to shenanigans. As long as a party with standing brings a petition.A state AG can do that. Also correct me if I'm wrong but Trump was speaking of mobilizing the NG. Only a governor of a state can do that correct?

already addressed.

"barr has public stated in the past, and nobody understood full/fool implications 'til now, that the Constitutional method for curbing executive authority is singular: impeachment. executive branch cannot do anything to stop President by the very nature o' executive branch authority and the Court should not 'cause abuses o' executive power is ultimate a political question."

the Courts tend to avoid stepping in for these matters. such reticence is wise save for when it becomes an excuse to avoid conflict. if the Court won't step in 'cause o' separation of powers, then only remedy is impeachment. 

whom the gods wish to punish, they grant wishes. have heard gd support general notion o' judicial restraint on more than one occasion. is a fine thing too, right up until the Court decides not to intervene in some government excess gd sees as a bridge too far. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hildegard]

Just crossed my mind to wonder what would the situation in the United States look like if someone armed these protesters with TOW, MANPAD and assault rifles. Don't know why it popped my mind thou....must be just my imagination.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Hildegard

[Malcador]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/06/iran-calls-stop-violence-people-200601184201383.html

"To the American people: the world has heard your outcry over the state of oppression. The world is standing with you," foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said at a news conference in Tehran on Monday.

[Keyrock]

ANTIFA is a terrorist organization, that much I agree with Orange Man. As for mobilizing troops to stop protests, that seems like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Also, I'm willing to bet ANTIFA aren't the only ones inciting riots, it would not surprise me one bit if Proud Boys and other far right radicals have had a hand in the escalation of violence. It's times like these that bring out the best and the worst in people.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Keyrock

[Raithe]

[Hurlshort]

11 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

ANTIFA is a terrorist organization, that much I agree with Orange Man. As for mobilizing troops to stop protests, that seems like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Organization is the problematic word here. There doesn't seem to be any real structure or leadership. I mean, there are some fantastic conspiracy theories out there that make them seem like some shadowy cabal, but yeah...it's a bit hard to believe. 

Traditional terrorist groups have meeting and pamphlets.

[Keyrock]

I'm not goint to claim to know the structure (or lack there of) of ANTIFA. I don't know if they have a secret handshake, or whatever.

The cowardice of moderate politicians on both sides in their reluctance to condemn the radical fringe groups on the far end of their "side of the fence" like ANTIFA and Proud Boys has contributed to allowing them to flourish.

[Gromnir]

46 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

ANTIFA is a terrorist organization, that much I agree with Orange Man.

is wrong way to consider the issue. assume for a moment trump has authority to label a domestic quasi-organization such as antifa as a terrorist group. now imagine all the other similar groups with little organization save an online presence. how many such associations o' american citizens has members who has advocated and indulged in violence at one time or another? consider what it means if any antifa analogous association o' americans may be labeled as a terrorist group.

always consider these kinda moves when used as a weapon pointed at something/somebody you cherish.

also, the idea that with all the race and religion driven groups in america which advocate and indulge in violence, antifa is the group which would brings 'bout a fundamental change in the way we define terrorism perpetrated by american citizens on american soil is kinda mind blowing.

am nevertheless dismayed by the increasing popularity o' antifa. for funsies, ask an antifa member to define fascism and see 'em struggle. *shrug* confront fascists and capitalists with means up to and including violence is so utter wrong and broken we have a hard time expressing our rejection. who are these people and what is the hole in their education which needs be filled?

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 2, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

whom the gods wish to punish, they grant wishes. have heard gd support general notion o' judicial restraint on more than one occasion. is a fine thing too, right up until the Court decides not to intervene in some government excess gd sees as a bridge too far. 

HA! Good Fun!

There is no conflict if the actions are clearly beyond the executive power a enumerated in Article 2. Not suggesting that applies to anything we are discussing, just as an example. 

[Guard Dog]

24 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

is wrong way to consider the issue. assume for a moment trump has authority to label a domestic quasi-organization such as antifa as a terrorist group. now imagine all the other similar groups with little organization save an online presence. how many such associations o' american citizens has members who has advocated and indulged in violence at one time or another? consider what it means if any antifa analogous association o' americans may be labeled as a terrorist group.

always consider these kinda moves when used as a weapon pointed at something/somebody you cherish.

also, the idea that with all the race and religion driven groups in america which advocate and indulge in violence, antifa is the group which would brings 'bout a fundamental change in the way we define terrorism perpetrated by american citizens on american soil is kinda mind blowing.

am nevertheless dismayed by the increasing popularity o' antifa. for funsies, ask an antifa member to define fascism and see 'em struggle. *shrug* confront fascists and capitalists with means up to and including violence is so utter wrong and broken we have a hard time expressing our rejection. who are these people and what is the hole in their education which needs be filled?

HA! Good Fun!

Absolutely. What one President does and gets away with the next one does more. Who's next? The NRA? Planned Parenthood? The Republican Party? Some might say those groups don't perpetrate violence and Antifa does. However I think that will matter far less than people think.