Trump Secret police

[newarkvol]

Did I really just read that? That article is seriously bemoaning the fact that--and accusing our Attorney General of--enforcing the federal laws that are on the books? This is seriously the angle the left is trying to play? Really?

They're trying to convince us to feel sorry for two liberal lawyers who burned down property with Molotov Cocktails, because the federal sentences for burning down buildings with Molotov cocktails are stiff? I mean... It's not like attorneys would have known they might get into a lot of trouble for--you know--rioting and arson and stuff.

I'm in awe that things have gotten this idiotic.

Double post

 

[Orange_Crush]

I know brown people with J.D.'s tossing malatov cocktails may be emotionally triggering for you....BUT
th crux of the article was about federal judicial overreach...not about the misguided perpetrators---who should be charged by the state of NY AND then go jail where they may to reflect upon their misdeeds...
Keep on reading for context OC!

I didn't even know what color the attorneys were. You're the one making it about race. That's a ... move on your part. If you can't argue the facts without stooping to a misplaced race card, you're not equipped to argue.

I read the entire piece. It literally described the laws that were being enforced, which gave federal jurisdiction, and while bemoaning it as overreach and crying "Muh Trump!". lol So, as I said, it was literally bemoaning the fact that the feds are enforcing federal laws that are on the books.

Here. I'll help. From the article.

In Mobile, Alabama, a protester allegedly used a bat to break a window of a police cruiser. Such an act is a paradigmatic state crime—an assault—but federal prosecutors contrived to bring a case for “civil disorder,” drawing on a rarely used federal law. Bringing the case in federal court allows Barr to posture against the protesters and, even more important, to make them eligible for longer prison sentences, as is usually the case in federal prosecutions.

Translation... The feds charged them on an existing federal law.

And since it's a federal crime, it carries longer sentences, which is the norm.

Tell me where the overreach is? In the existing legislation that is on the books? Then go change them. But don't crap your pants because the DOJ is doing their job. It's weak. And your only defense if personal feelz. You have no moral or legal high ground to argue from.

Here's another:

Mattis and Rahman have pleaded not guilty, but the case against them appears strong.

Do you know why the case is so strong? Because they are litigating existing laws on the books.

So, as I said, the entire piece is about federal overreach, but all it does is describe a DOJ that is upholding the laws on the books. As I said, all they're doing is bemoaning the fact that they're doing their job.

You and the author are free to express the opinion that doing so is "overreach", but it's literally the laws on the books. As you're free to share you feelz and opinion, I'll be sure to express my freedom to show just how stupid it is.

And you're beneath even my contempt when you lead with the race card. Kick rocks.

 

[Orange_Crush]

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[Carl Pickens]

Where do you think Federal money comes from?

From a secret vault under the liberal cesspool they call Portland?

 

[0nelilreb]

Did you stop watching Fox News? The Director of HS was on saying he wasn’t leaving no matter the demand of the Governor and affected Mayors because he wasn’t finished with the “task”. The task was local politicians wouldn’t do the job in their own state so he would clean up their mess

This is wrong on so may fronts

I don’t watch Fox , I may listen to Trucker if he has an interesting topic I want to here . If I want national news I’ll listen to or read CNN , FOX and MSNBC .. then figure out what the truth is .

 

[PointGuard]

So, you really have nothing to bring to the table except your screeching. No facts. Just what you wish the world was like.You claimed it's "wrong". I guess maybe we just needed you to define your terms. Apparently to you, "wrong" just means "whaaaaa!" as opposed to legally or Constitutionally improper.

And if you'd followed my argument in this thread you'd have heard me say that the best solution would have been for the Federal gov't to not have needed to become involved. So, your distraction about leopards is misplaced.

Screech this! The Federal Government got involved at the direction of Trump so as to pander to Trump's base. Dotard is getting his arse handed to him in the polls because of all of his mis-steps and total managerial incompetence. That and and nothing more is behind HS intervention. Those who misunderstand "law and order" as it being OK for the "Federal" people shooting rubber bullets and tear gas into peaceful demonstrators at Lafayette square so Trump and Barr could do Trump's photo-op in front of a Church (while holding the Bible upside down LMAO) got what you wanted. Trump is restoring your incorrect interpretation of law and order It is not the role of Federal "militia" to accost U.S. Citizens

The broader issue is this is a major problem, I have no interest in engaging you further on this. You shield your distorted views under the heading of God and are one of the most hypocritical posters on this forum. Apparently you forgot your recent example when you inadvertently acknowledged "systemic racism" by writing your hay seed story of driving your old truck and being more mindful of how you would be observed by local cops driving in certain areas than you would be "observed" in your newer vehicle. I repeat - -Screech This!

 

[Orange_Crush]

Screech this! The Federal Government got involved at the direction of Trump so as to pander to Trump's base. Dotard is getting his arse handed to him in the polls because of all of his mis-steps and total managerial incompetence. That and and nothing more is behind HS intervention. Those who misunderstand "law and order" as it being OK for the "Federal" people shooting rubber bullets and tear gas into peaceful demonstrators at Lafayette square so Trump and Barr could do Trump's photo-op in front of a Church (while holding the Bible upside down LMAO) got what you wanted. Trump is restoring your incorrect interpretation of law and order It is not the role of Federal "militia" to accost U.S. Citizens

The broader issue is this is a major problem, I have no interest in engaging you further on this. You shield your distorted views under the heading of God and are one of the most hypocritical posters on this forum. Apparently you forgot your recent example when you inadvertently acknowledged "systemic racism" by writing your hay seed story of driving your old truck and being more mindful of how you would be observed by local cops driving in certain areas than you would be "observed" in your newer vehicle. I repeat - -Screech This!

Kudos. You called your shot.

 

[BeecherVol]

It's amazing to see people call for the federal stick for "x". Then lose their ish if they jump in on "y".

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[Weezer]

View attachment 294130

Well, I don't support the federal involvement, but an honest conversation about Antifa should mention them beating the hell out of people.

 

[n_huffhines]

Well, I don't support the federal involvement, but an honest conversation about Antifa should mention them beating the hell out of people.

OK, but I've seen Trump supporters beat people. Do we have to explicitly mention that to have an honest convo about red hats, or can we mention there is bad behavior and leave it at that?

 

[Weezer]

OK, but I've seen Trump supporters beat people. Do we have to explicitly mention that to have an honest convo about red hats, or can we mention there is bad behavior and leave it at that?

I've seen random people beat random people, but the topic was Antifa, and they mentioned an "honest conversation". It's not really an honest conversation when you leave the violence part out and only mention "vandalism and graffiti".

 

[Orange_Crush]

View attachment 294130

Again... This post is making a lot of assumptions about what the Federal gov't may or may not know about Antifa and their actions. It asks for an "honest conversation" on the subject and then proceeds to make an argument from ignorance. I'm not convinced.

I'm sure at one time he/she could have made the argument, "All Epstein has done is be pictured with young looking models. Can any libertarian in good conscience condone the Federal gov't being unleashed on him?"

 

[n_huffhines]

I've seen random people beat random people, but the topic was Antifa, and they mentioned an "honest conversation". It's not really an honest conversation when you leave the violence part out and only mention "vandalism and graffiti".

He didn't "only mention" vandalism and graffiti. He implied there was worse behavior than that, and he specifically mentioned harassment and that they "attacked" gentrifiers.

You read what you want to read and make a thing out of nothing.

 

[n_huffhines]

Again... This post is making a lot of assumptions about what the Federal gov't may or may not know about Antifa and their actions. It asks for an "honest conversation" on the subject and then proceeds to make an argument from ignorance. I'm not convinced.

I'm sure at one time he/she could have made the argument, "All Epstein has done is be pictured with young looking models. Can any libertarian in good conscience condone the Federal gov't being unleashed on him?"

It's possible this is all legal and also good government, but I doubt it's either and I'm going to ring the bell until we get to the bottom of it, because you don't **** around with this stuff in a free country.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's possible this is all legal and also good government, but I doubt it's either and I'm going to ring the bell until we get to the bottom of it, because you don't **** around with this stuff in a free country.

Ring away. You just may want to be a little more choosy of the half-ass quotes you're throwing up as if either of you know what the hell is going on. Again... Barr has specifically said that organized violence with intention to undermine the Republic has been under investigation. He mentioned investigations into whether it has been foreign sponsored. Those are things you don't want to **** around with in a free country either.

They may be acting in defense of the republic for all you know.

So, you post that, calling people deranged and paranoid, then follow it up with a shrug and say, "Hey, what do I know? Maybe they have a point. But I'll keep this pissy strutting up because, you know... Freedom."

<eyeroll>

 

[Weezer]

He didn't "only mention" vandalism and graffiti. He implied there was worse behavior than that, and he specifically mentioned harassment and that they "attacked" gentrifiers.

You read what you want to read and make a thing out of nothing.

I think I read it pretty clearly and it wasn't an actual attempt at an "honest conversation".

 

[Orange_Crush]

View attachment 294130

"You people who who are tired of seeing riots burn our cities down are deranged and paranoid. Me and huff aren't deranged and paranoid for seeing Nazi Brownshirts because the gov't is putting down riots. It you guys that don't err on the side of Trump being a modern day American nazi dictator. Y'all are the deranged paranoids. The ones who aren't freaking the hell out about the Federal police putting down riots that are burning cities down.

Y'all.

Get it?"

 

[n_huffhines]

I think I read it pretty clearly and it wasn't an actual attempt at an "honest conversation".

Whatever helps you process. I can't change your mind with facts. The refutations are right there in his quote.

 

[Weezer]

Whatever helps you process. I can't change your mind with facts. The refutations are right there in his quote

lol What facts? Did we read the same thing where whoever wrote it was obviously trying to downplay Antifa's misdeeds? Anyone who understands context can clearly see it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Whatever helps you process. I can't change your mind with facts. The refutations are right there in his quote.

It's not "honest" to you because it's not worded in a way that appeases your viewpoint. He says nothing good about Antifa. Only bad. You're really going to go this route because you got nothing else

An honest conversation, huh?

When was the last time you saw someone at a concert take over parts of cities and proclaim them a sovereign state? We see a lot of secession and insurrection every weekend at concerts?

 

[n_huffhines]

lol What facts? Did we read the same thing where whoever wrote it was obviously trying to downplay Antifa's misdeeds? Anyone who understands context can clearly see it.

Are you forgetting the part where I proved to you that he didn't only say "graffiti and vandalism" and that he did mention violence?

It's not "honest" to you because it's not worded in a way that appeases your viewpoint. He says nothing good about Antifa. Only bad. You're really going to go this route because you got nothing else. You can't just say "the federal govt. shouldn't do that." You gotta deflect because of your bias against antifa. He's 100% right about his thesis and you're trying to correct his grammar, essentially

 

[Weezer]

Are you forgetting the part where I proved to you that he didn't only say "graffiti and vandalism" and that he did mention violence?

It's not "honest" to you because it's not worded in a way that appeases your viewpoint. He says nothing good about Antifa. Only bad. You're really going to go this route because you got nothing else. You can't just say "the federal govt. shouldn't do that." You gotta deflect because of your bias against antifa. He's 100% right about his thesis and you're trying to correct his grammar, essentially

My bad, he said it's mostly vandalism and graffiti after totally downplaying the beating the hell out of people.

 

[Weezer]

Are you forgetting the part where I proved to you that he didn't only say "graffiti and vandalism" and that he did mention violence?

It's not "honest" to you because it's not worded in a way that appeases your viewpoint. He says nothing good about Antifa. Only bad. You're really going to go this route because you got nothing else. You can't just say "the federal govt. shouldn't do that." You gotta deflect because of your bias against antifa. He's 100% right about his thesis and you're trying to correct his grammar, essentially

lmao I came out and said I did not support the federal intervention. I was pretty clear on that. But this was in no way an attempt at an "honest conversation". How you don't see that is beyond me.