Trump Enslavement Syndrome - Orange man good. /r/The_Donald and any public demonstration of rabid pro-Trump enthusiasm in spite of all reason.

Jinn in the phone said:
Indian
Click to expand...
Are these indians in the room with us right now?
1749363643507.webp
 
Breahna said:
Common misconception. With the exception of several emperors like Diocletian, there was very little actual targeted persecution of christians. The reason why so many Christians ended up getting fed to the lions is because in that period a lot of converts to christianity were slaves, petty criminals and other lumpen elements of society. Since it was criminals getting sent to the lions, coincidentally a lot of them happened to be christians
Click to expand...
So Christians lied about their persecution even back then too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Butt, The Hardest R, Breahna and 1 other person
SBG said:
View attachment 7474562
Some are giving Trump shit for stumbling a bit today given how similar it looks to how Biden did.
Click to expand...
trump and biden are both old af (tump is 7 8, and have dementia. I swear, trump is going to have a stroke within the next five years. can't wait for MAGAtards thinking a "stroke face" is a sign of "manliness"
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Sedan Hussein, No. 7 cat, The Hardest R and 6 others
The fanatical support of Trump's decision to send the National Guard to California by the right wing is highly concerning. The U.S. is irreparably polarized and it has reached such a point that a significant portion of the population is gleeful at the idea of using a military force against protesting U.S. citizens. I sincerely doubt that reconciliation will become possible in the near future. Somehow, the Soviets won from beyond the grave.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: jenna raiding, Abowaffen, Pholidota and 16 others
YHWH's Strongest Soldier said:
The fanatical support of Trump's decision to send the National Guard to California by the right wing is highly concerning. The U.S. is irreparably polarized and it has reached such a point that a significant portion of the population is gleeful at the idea of using a military force against protesting U.S. citizens. I sincerely doubt that reconciliation will become possible in the near future. Somehow, the Soviets won from beyond the grave.
Click to expand...
The governor of California and the mayor of LA don't even want the National Guard there.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. It irritates me to no end when the far right calls the left "Commies." THIS administration is what Communism is all about....pretending to care about its people while enriching the oligarchy.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: ThotsForTism, Nighttime Springtime, Skullcrusher and 7 others
YHWH's Strongest Soldier said:
The fanatical support of Trump's decision to send the National Guard to California by the right wing is highly concerning. The U.S. is irreparably polarized and it has reached such a point that a significant portion of the population is gleeful at the idea of using a military force against protesting U.S. citizens. I sincerely doubt that reconciliation will become possible in the near future. Somehow, the Soviets won from beyond the grave.
Click to expand...
“America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success.” -Sigmund Freud
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Skullcrusher, Hollywood Hulk Hogan and Bunny Wigglesworth
To be clear, I disagree with the intent behind the protests, but sending the National Guard to supress them against the wishes of California's governor seems a serious breach of the Tenth Amendment. This harms the U.S. far more than any protest or even riot could. I hope that no casualties occur as the situation appears to be a powder keg.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Bunny Tracks, Junkers 87, Scumlord and 6 others
YHWH's Strongest Soldier said:
The fanatical support of Trump's decision to send the National Guard to California by the right wing is highly concerning. The U.S. is irreparably polarized and it has reached such a point that a significant portion of the population is gleeful at the idea of using a military force against protesting U.S. citizens. I sincerely doubt that reconciliation will become possible in the near future. Somehow, the Soviets won from beyond the grave.
Click to expand...
Think most of those cheering on think nobody protesting is a US citizen, or if they are, they shouldn't be. The second part is what I think can be used to tread a dangerous line, if you can arbitrarily create non-citizens and then morally justify sending military force against them (in a way, making it immoral to NOT send the military against them), you are manufacturing a very dangerous consent for civil liberties.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Scribbler, Skullcrusher, Junkers 87 and 4 others
YHWH's Strongest Soldier said:
The fanatical support of Trump's decision to send the National Guard to California by the right wing is highly concerning. The U.S. is irreparably polarized and it has reached such a point that a significant portion of the population is gleeful at the idea of using a military force against protesting U.S. citizens. I sincerely doubt that reconciliation will become possible in the near future. Somehow, the Soviets won from beyond the grave.
Click to expand...

Was skimming through some stuff about that national guard deployment earlier.

The National Guard in Los Angeles​

Late yesterday, President Donald Trump signed a Presidential Proclamation mobilizing 2,000 National Guard personnel to respond to protests against ICE immigration raids in Los Angeles. This is not an invocation of the Insurrection Act. Instead, the president has relied on a far more limited (though also quite old) theory of inherent presidential authority known as the protective power. In tandem with this theory of constitutional authority, the president has also relied on an emergency statutory authority, 10 U.S.C. 12406, to mobilize National Guard personnel to undertake the duties authorized under the protective power.

There has been significant mischaracterization of what the president has authorized in the memorandum signed yesterday. Governor Gavin Newsom has criticized, for example, a complete takeover of the California National Guard. This is not provided for in the memo. Here is what the memo does provide. First, it characterizes protests (ongoing since Friday) against ICE raids in the Los Angeles area as threatening the “faithful execution of Federal immigration laws.” It also states that “violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to Federal immigration detention facilities and other Federal property.” The first paragraph concludes by asserting that “[t]o the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the United States.”

This last sentence is essential to the first legal move made in the memo. The second paragraph begins by invoking 10 U.S.C. 12406, an emergency National Guard personnel mobilization authority. It is essential to first pause here and distinguish Section 12406 from the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act is a compilation of statutes enacted across the 18th and 19th centuries, currently codified at Chapter 13 of Title 10, which provide the president positive statutory authority to use the military for law enforcement purposes within the United States in certain enumerated circumstances, generally regarding obstruction of federal law enforcement. It is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, the statute that generally criminalizes using the military for domestic law enforcement purposes unless there is express statutory or constitutional authority to do so. Section 12406, on the other hand, only authorizes the president to involuntarily call National Guard personnel into federal service in one of three circumstances. I want to repeat here—all that Section 12406 does is authorize the president to bring National Guard personnel onto federal active duty if one of the following three circumstances applies:

  • (1) Actual or threatened foreign invasion;
  • (2) Actual or threatened rebellion “against the authority of the Government of the United States”; or
  • (3) When the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
The first paragraph of the presidential memorandum suggests that the president is using the second prong of the statute as the hook for involuntarily mobilizing these National Guard personnel. This, of course, is factually contestable and, even on the face of the memorandum, unusually weak. (Note that the final sentence of the first paragraph, which alleges the rebellion, is in the conditional.)

We can infer that the legal authority for this mission is the protective power from the text of the second paragraph of the president’s memorandum. We are told that the president has authorized National Guard personnel to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.” This phrasing of the mission is nearly identical to the text of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo, which stands for the modern executive branch understanding of the protective power. In this April 29, 1971, memo, OLC reiterated the longstanding executive branch view that the president has “inherent authority to use troops for the protection of federal property and federal functions.” This understanding of presidential power is based on a broad understanding of the president’s authority under the Take Care Clause, in addition to dicta from In re Neagle and In re Debs, asserting what OLC calls “the President’s inherent powers to use troops to protect federal property and functions.”

Importantly, the protective power does not extend as far as the general authorization to undertake law enforcement functions which the Insurrection Act provides. This is implicitly noted in the 1971 OLC memo, which ends by advising the president that he can still invoke the greater powers available under the Insurrection Act if circumstances further deteriorate. It was more explicitly recognized by former Attorney General Bill Barr in the wake of the last known invocation of this authority—the military response to Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, D.C. In a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Barr wrote that the authority to protect federal properties included:

  1. “crowd control, temporary detention, cursory search, measures to ensure the safety of persons on the property, and establishment of security perimeters, consistent with the peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights)”;
  2. “protection of federal officials, employees, and law enforcement personnel from harm or threat of bodily injury”; and
  3. “protection of federal functions, such as federal employees’ access to their workplaces, the free and safe movement of federal personnel throughout the city, and the continued operation of U.S. mails.”
We see a gesture towards these limitations in the presidential memorandum’s third paragraph. It begins by stating that “to carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property.” This single sentence could not be more important. The executive, again as reflected in the 1971 OLC memo, has long asserted that the protective power is not an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act because the activities authorized under the protective power are not themselves law enforcement activities. In the days to come, the public must be laser focused on seeing the extent to which Secretary Hegseth adheres to these historically recognized limitations.

There will be time in the days to come to dig further into the twisted history of the protective power. As I have written previously, the 1971 OLC opinion articulates an understanding of presidential authority that can be traced back to President Millard Fillmore’s use of the military to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850. But this history belies what I believe are significant infirmities in the executive branch’s purported legal basis for the protective power. I don’t want to overstate the practical significance of my critiques—there have been no meaningful challenges to the protective power that I’m aware of and this is an area where courts have traditionally been exceedingly deferential to the executive branch.

The coming hours and days will be incredibly consequential. As this military response unfolds, we must stay focused on the limited authorization for military action which President Trump unleashed today.
Click to expand...

Anyway, the reaction to the protests and riots is kinda predictable. There are a lot of people that figure any sign of the protests is tantamount to complete destruction of cities as that's a more fun and spicy take for social media influencers to make. Though it is also true that there had been a number of protesters trying to hamper the execution of deportations, so it's not like there's no justification for trying to get law enforcement out there to try stopping those disrupting their activities.

What I think is more bothersome are those ignoring what people are protesting, which has often been these stories of people here in the US legally still getting deported or the more numerous instances of those here illegally getting carted off in spite of not committing more violent crimes like those people usually associate with criminals. Many Trump supporters are assuming they already won in the court of public opinion as evidenced by the election and have ignored how public opinion on the deportations quickly went south as people saw them actually start up in larger numbers against anyone ICE could get their hands on.

So you quickly get a sense that those Trump supporters don't believe there is a need to come across as acceptable to the country at large. Which I think will surprise them how it bites them in the ass electorally.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Scribbler, Hollywood Hulk Hogan and Ainchiemi
The Tiananmen Square massacre completed its 36th anniversary a few days ago.

It was a massive own to the chinese libs, that's why Trump wants to recreate it.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Scribbler
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back