Trump Secret police

[Orange_Crush]

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

Apparently neither can you if you're having an honest conversation.

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.

 

[golfballs]

 

[hog88]

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

The “skeptical libertarian” is a liberal rag.

 

[golfballs]

The “skeptical libertarian” is a liberal rag.

It’s Huff’s personal blog

 

[golfballs]

Tbh the biggest problem here is that it didn’t happen sooner.

 

[0nelilreb]

The “skeptical libertarian” is a liberal rag.

I actually think Huff wears a seat belt every time he gets in a car , wears a mask every time he goes outside and puts on a bicycle helmet to ride the bike lanes around his gated community to check and make sure the Mexicans are cutting the grass the right length , before he get in his Prius to run to Starbucks and hops on their WiFi to post skeptical libertarian posts .

 

[Orange_Crush]

I actually think Huff wears a seat belt every time he gets in a car , wears a mask every time he goes outside and puts on a bicycle helmet to ride the bike lanes around his gated community to check and make sure the Mexicans are cutting the grass the right length , before he get in his Prius to run to Starbucks and hoops on their WiFi to post skeptical libertarian posts .

They make helmets that small? I saw pictures, man!

 

[GoDucks349]

You're claiming that it's improper for the Feds to be there. I asked for facts to back that up and you reply as thought it's inappropriate for me to ask for you to back up your claims.

I didn't say it was improper for the feds to be there

It's not my job to do your research for you. You made claims. You obviously can't back them up when asked to. Now you are trying to spin it. But, having made the accusations, the burden of proof is your. The problem is that you've given yourself the burden to prove a negative. It's not always impossible, but with the scope of what you'd need to know/show in this case, it's damn near impossible.

I made no claims as you describe.

I haven't said that it's Constitutional for them to be there. I'm merely withholding my judgment until I get facts one way or the other. So, not having made any claims one way or the other, what facts should I need to go get to support my lack of assertions? What burden of proof do I have?

I never brought up whether it was constitutional for them to be there.

As such, Barr's allusion hurts your case, but not mine. The allusion is one of many possibilities that calls your claims into question. You claim it's unconstitutional and the feds have no jurisdiction. If the two mentioned parts of the investigation were true, you're wrong. Can you disprove them? If not, you're talking out of your rectum with unsupported claims.

Which is it Barr's allusions or that he alluded to something? Make up your mind

So, without the ability to prove a lack of Constitutionality and jurisdiction, you'd be more honest to say, "I don't like this and it makes me uncomfortable". Despite what you believe, that isn't synonymous with "They have no right to be here doing what they're doing."

This last bold is very disturbing, you put it in quotes as if it is something I said. This is something that is a total lie and requires an apology from you.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[Carl Pickens]

View attachment 294130

I guess throwing feces and urine is acceptable.... and bashing people in the skull with bicycle locks is normal

 

[golfballs]

.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I actually think Huff wears a seat belt every time he gets in a car , wears a mask every time he goes outside and puts on a bicycle helmet to ride the bike lanes around his gated community to check and make sure the Mexicans are cutting the grass the right length , before he get in his Prius to run to Starbucks and hoops on their WiFi to post skeptical libertarian posts .

While wearing the made in China t-shirt and shorts he bought at Walmart

 

[RockyTop85]

In most contexts, it’s the government’s burden to show that its actions comport with the law and the constitution, particularly when depriving us of our freedom. That’s true in fourth amendment challenges, it’s reflected in the allocation of the burden of proof, it’s true in Miranda challenges (the classing Miranda warning is a prophylactic measure to satisfy the government’s burden)... I’m sure there are other contexts where this is the case, but it’s late.

There are many good reasons for this. Surely they don’t require elaboration.

So, when unidentified government agents of an unknown agency are arresting people to an unknown location on unknown charges, I’m not sure the scarcity of publicly known information and facts regarding the constitutionality of this action is really on the pro-government side of the ledger. It seems like the lack of transparency is the grievance.

The fact that the government hasn’t provided any remedy for this grievance doesn’t have any bearing on the merits. There’s no presumption of validity when the government deprives people of their liberty. Thats a rake we should probably all try to stop stepping on.

 

[37L1]

Those being arrested should/must be told for what they are being arrested/detained. No ifs or buts.

It can be done en masse as in an unlawful assembly being declared.

 

[davethevol]

Those being arrested should/must be told for what they are being arrested/detained. No ifs or buts.

It can be done en masse as in an unlawful assembly being declared.

I’m guessing it’s done under the patriot act, which if I remember clearly allows the government to detain anyone indefinitely without charging them if they are suspected of terrorism or being connected to someone that is. That was something that terrified me when I read it way back when it was passed, and I have a feeling we are seeing some of that now.

 

[Volsfaninva917]

Maybe by your definition which we both know just means white.

If you go by who has contributed more to society and done more to help America then you are barely even an American and I'm a huge freaking patriot.

Lol, you're literally the only person I see on this board using race labels. Why do you hate people that don't look like you?

 

[Volsfaninva917]

Good

 

[Orangeslice13]

Some of us called this weeks ago.
If you don’t want a federal police force in your area then don’t defund the police or tell them to stand down. If the locals do their job then there’s no excuse the feds can use to take over. It’s just that simple

 

[Carl Pickens]

They make helmets that small? I saw pictures, man!

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Interesting. Trump has been in a no win situation since the beginning of this. If he helps detain these criminals he is a fascist. If he doesn’t he is incompetent. Oh and we just need to stop with all the “peaceful protestors” BS. It’s not peaceful protesting when you are destroying public property, assaulting police officers and enticing fear into the general public. That friends is terrorism. And when local and state leaders are either too incompetent or refuse to resolve these issues and protect their citizens, then the government should step in and do it for them.

 

[0nelilreb]

I didn’t see this posted anywhere , this is the one in charge explaining what their intentions are ..

 

[37L1]

I’m guessing it’s done under the patriot act, which if I remember clearly allows the government to detain anyone indefinitely without charging them if they are suspected of terrorism or being connected to someone that is. That was something that terrified me when I read it way back when it was passed, and I have a feeling we are seeing some of that now.

They still should be given a reason for their detention.

 

[Weezer]

Some of us called this weeks ago.
If you don’t want a federal police force in your area then don’t defund the police or tell them to stand down. If the locals do their job then there’s no excuse the feds can use to take over. It’s just that simple

JMO, but for jurisdictional purposes, feds shouldn't intervene unless invited, which they weren't. If mayors want to let their towns go to hell, then it's up to the constituents to hold their feet to the fire. I'm not okay with the continual federal overreach. They keep taking more and more power, and I don't see that as a good thing.

 

[Zues1]

JMO, but for jurisdictional purposes, feds shouldn't intervene unless invited, which they weren't. If mayors want to let their towns go to hell, then it's up to the constituents to hold their feet to the fire. I'm not okay with the continual federal overreach. They keep taking more and more power, and I don't see that as a good thing.

If the constituents storm the castle to toss the mayor out on their ass should the feds intervene?

 

[NurseGoodVol]

I’m guessing it’s done under the patriot act, which if I remember clearly allows the government to detain anyone indefinitely without charging them if they are suspected of terrorism or being connected to someone that is. That was something that terrified me when I read it way back when it was passed, and I have a feeling we are seeing some of that now.

Still believe the Patriot act should go the way of the dodo.