POLL: Should Trump Invoke the Insurrection Act?

Should Trump Invoke the Insurrection Act?

  • Yes, it is his responsibility to end the riots

    Votes: 14 17.7%

  • No, it is the local/state governments' responsibility to end the riots.

    Votes: 65 82.3%
  • Total voters
    79
#102
#102
Orange defense said:
Other areas!? Someone will die if they come to my area.
Click to expand...
It's already happening. People are fleeing California and land in other areas. Instead of assimilating they try and make it like what they ran from. Austin is a prime example. It's the craziest thing. "I hate this place so I'm going to make my new home what I hated"
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmhawk and AM64
#103
#103
Chris4Vols22 said:
I don't see how one could argue that these issues in the political world aren't intertwined in culture everywhere. These movements are driven by what's happening on a national level. Here on VN, a UT Athletics forum, we have incredibly active forums dedicated to the political and cultural ongoings in several different states. It absolutely should be addressed at the national level by people with the power make others listen.
Click to expand...
To the last, nope nope nopity nope nope. Just because someone has the power doesnt mean they should use it. I think George Washington was the last president that understood this.

How can you claim to be a free nation/demcracy/people if the government actively engages in "making people listen to them" on political disagreements.

This is exactly when the government needs to gtfo and let the people decide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#104
#104
AM64 said:
I don't like Trump - never have and likely never will. I don't approve of his business practices, BUT congress wrote the laws that he and many others have used to their benefit (specifically tax code, investment, corporate bankruptcy, and charities), AND members of congress have become very wealthy doing so. What we dearly need is a decent class of political leaders, but that's not going to happen until there's a day of reckoning for politicians forcing an end to their graft and corruption - that's not going to happen because we turn a blind eye to ethics while getting all wrapped up in political dogma. The old guy with the lamp is still looking for an honest man, and he isn't going to find one in the halls of politics or business - that's for certain.
Click to expand...
Vote for Louder. I will promise to be the most benevolent dictator you have ever seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, tntar heel and AM64
#105
#105
0nelilreb said:
You have the right to “Peacefully protest” . It’s sounds very simple to me . I don’t get what’s so hard about that at all .
Click to expand...

The interesting thing that seems to be missing in a lot of discussions is the punctuation in the first amendment. Specifically

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right to "peaceably assemble" is linked with to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - that doesn't happen in a closed down city in the middle of the night; and the concept is all about preventing government from turning a deaf ear to the populace which would certainly fly in the face of "representative" government. The thought about "free speech" or "of the press" are a separate clause - just like the part pertaining to religion. For example, since I'm not the government, I see nothing there saying that I am forced to hear someone's views on anything. I just don't see anything justifying either violent assembly or the forcing of any view on the ordinary person since ordinary people aren't the "government". The concept of violent protest or even the usurpation of public land, roads, etc to spew "free speech" simple seems a perversion of a very very simply worded document. Like you, I don't see what's so difficult about any of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmhawk and 0nelilreb
#107
#107
OHvol40 said:
Yes it is. What % of protests are actually “riots”? Tennessee made it pretty clear that the GOP is fine with stripping personal liberties if a protest isn’t politically simpatico with the majority.

So, in short, without qualifying specific instances or establishing criteria for “rioting”, it is a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...
Bump for @USAFgolferVol it's made it into this thread.
 
#111
#111
AM64 said:
So you are saying it's just a matter of semantics? As long as you are in favor of the message, it's OK if things get messy and property is destroyed?
Click to expand...

How extreme should an instance be for the govt to violate your personal liberties? A lot of people in here sound like they would have been loyal to King George in favor of “law and order”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFFL@THE BEACH and Tyler Durden
#112
#112
LouderVol said:
To the last, nope nope nopity nope nope. Just because someone has the power doesnt mean they should use it. I think George Washington was the last president that understood this.

How can you claim to be a free nation/demcracy/people if the government actively engages in "making people listen to them" on political disagreements.

This is exactly when the government needs to gtfo and let the people decide.
Click to expand...
You guys are completely ignoring the point. It doesn't matter exactly who it's coming from. No one is stepping up to build a bridge. Everyone is just arguing.
 
#114
#114
OHvol40 said:
How extreme should an instance be for the govt to violate your personal liberties? A lot of people in here sound like they would have been loyal to King George in favor of “law and order”.
Click to expand...

What does our constitution say ? Again it does seem very simple to me .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#116
#116
OHvol40 said:
How extreme should an instance be for the govt to violate your personal liberties? A lot of people in here sound like they would have been loyal to King George in favor of “law and order”.
Click to expand...
No question volfanjustin would have been whining about radicals like Thomas Paine arguing the slaves should be free.
 
#117
#117
Ten_Titans said:
Then clarify. Is the violence in the street the problem, or is Trump stoking the fear the problem?

You can't claim Trump is causing fear and then simultaneously admit the reason for the fear is justified.
Click to expand...


Both. But they are different problems. Violence by the left is wrong. Violence by the right is wrong.

A second problem is when you have a Preisdent that takes a specific side, and only one side, because he sees personal poitical advantage to it.
 
#119
#119
OHvol40 said:
How extreme should an instance be for the govt to violate your personal liberties? A lot of people in here sound like they would have been loyal to King George in favor of “law and order”.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty nebulous question. "For the greater good" may very well cover a government requirement that people take certain measures to protect themselves and others in a pandemic - perhaps an example (at least by some) when the government has taken measures to violate personal liberties. Perhaps protective actions taken during disasters - perhaps actions to prevent price gouging during disasters ... However, if the question is whether the government does or doesn't have the right or responsibility to prevent looting, property destruction, battery, or attempted murder during a "discussion" or "demonstration" that others might recognize as rioting; then certainly at least a local government has the right responsibility to step in to prevent injury and damage. Nothing gives someone the "right" to break laws in the name of "free speech" or "peaceful assembly".

A question to you. If someone is hung in effigy as a demonstration of free speech, is it free speech or a hate crime dependent on the race of the person hung in effigy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmhawk
#120
#120
OHvol40 said:
How extreme should an instance be for the govt to violate your personal liberties? A lot of people in here sound like they would have been loyal to King George in favor of “law and order”.
Click to expand...
If the "protestors" were burning down King George's government buildings and raiding his stache of tea it would be understandable. Instead the protestors are burning down businesses and homes and etc that have nothing to do with King George.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmhawk, NorthDallas40 and AM64
#121
#121
OHvol40 said:
How extreme should an instance be for the govt to violate your personal liberties? A lot of people in here sound like they would have been loyal to King George in favor of “law and order”.
Click to expand...
So you’re just ok with destruction of property, looting and burning down buildings/businesses under the guise of social justice?

Why can’t they protest and obey the law?

Peaceful assembly is protected.
Destruction of property, violence and arson is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hmhawk, 0nelilreb and AM64
#122
#122
ajvol01 said:
So you’re just ok with destruction of property, looting and burning down buildings/businesses under the guise of social justice?

Why can’t they protest and obey the law?

Peaceful assembly is protected.
Destruction of property, violence and arson is not.
Click to expand...

I agree, destruction of property and looting are unacceptable. That would be classified as rioting. Arrest and charge the people doing it. Only those people, with proof and due process... just like any other crime. Agreed?
 
#124
#124
Wafflestomper said:
It's a United States problem though--and Trump is the chief executive. I'm guessing if Biden was in charge presently he would receive plenty of criticism too. It's the nature of the job. He needs to facilitate finding solutions to the problems we face rather than making them worse.
Click to expand...
If only Biden had been a Senator for more than 36 years and Vice President for 8 years then maybe he could have done something!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, AM64, hmhawk and 1 other person
#125
#125
Where’s the option for yes, it’s the the state local governments responsibility, but they failed and now Trump should take over and jail all the rioters, Dems, and journos who instigated this lawlessness.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top