U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

[Syaoran Li]

Random thought.

Federal police can be used to enforce federal law.

Portland has a bunch of Marijuana stores. Which are illegal.

The Feds could swarm those stores immediately, seize all their store records, and then start arresting customers left and right for federal drug charges. And I don't think there's anything the local politicians could do about it.

Problem is that Oregon legalized marijuana on the state level and the general public is cool with weed. Only the surviving fundie geezers of yesteryear and Zoomer traditionalist faggot tryhards support pot being fully illegal. The majority of Americans are in favor of full legalization or at the very least, decriminalization and state-level legalization.

Unless the store records have concrete and easily obvious proof that their owners knowingly transported or sold large quanties of marijuana outside state lines or got their product directly from well-known cartels or organized crime gangs, going after the dispensaries and head shops is a bad idea.

It's terrible optics, especially given how the state government is already obstructing the federal investigation as much as they can get away with. Plus, charging these groups over marijuana gives the Dems a lot more ammunition to use against Trump, since it can very easily be twisted to make him look like the traditionalist despot that so many left-wing and progressive liberal talking heads constantly. accuse him of being.

The Feds won't go after the weed stores unless there's some kind of smoking gun in one of them that isn't directly tied to the marijuana trade itself but something else (like if a dispensary owner knowingly hid evidence of federal crimes or let Antifa groups plan attacks on federal property in there) or if the shops were being used as fronts for other extremely illegal activity or laundering money.

 

[muh_moobs]

I keep warning the pot heads about that and its always "No one would do that" It's still federally illegal it doesn't mean shit if you state "legalized it" federalization means that states can only make laws more strict if federal law already has something on the books about it.

Yes state rights matter, but if the Federal government already says "X is illegal" the states can can't do anything about it [if they don't like it] apart from maybe trying the "two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions." method of constitutional amendment. Remember if there is a conflict in laws, the highest level succeeds the lower level*

*conflicts as in "Feds say its illegal states says its not", states are allowed to make laws that are more stringent then federal, but not the other way around.

Constitution says otherwise. Last I checked, nowhere does the constitution say drugs are verboten. Which then takes up back to the 10th Amendment limiting the powers of the Federal Government.

 

[Ruin]

View attachment 1465493

How do you even talk to someone this stupid

2+2=5 Disagree? You're a Nazi.

 

[Fliddaroonie]

very optimistic take
chinese are raised with insane amounts of state propaganda and indoctrination, as a result the vast majority of them are fiercely loyal to the state and party

Very, very true. I've met a few Mandarin teachers here in the UK. This is shocking, but a lot of schools in parts of the UK have Mandarin classes taught by Chinese people who teach and run their own curriculum that's set by the CCP. They provide subsidised extremely cheap "educational" trips to China for British school kids, and their teaching does cover language but is heavily laden with chinese propaganda. Which is, frankly, fucking terrifying.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

View attachment 1465493

How do you even talk to someone this stupid

Loudly, slowly, with small words. But you have to actually have the conversation.

It's something I've realized over the past few years. There's a reason they scream NAZI and demand you be silent. They wouldn't waste the effort unless you being silent was a benefit to them.

"Tell the Truth. Or at least, don't lie."

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

Constitution says otherwise. Last I checked, nowhere does the constitution say drugs are verboten. Which then takes up back to the 10th Amendment limiting the powers of the Federal Government.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 AKA "Supremacy Clause"

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And 21 USC § 812 lists pot as a controlled substance.

 

[Niggaplease]

I keep warning the pot heads about that and its always "No one would do that" It's still federally illegal it doesn't mean shit if you state "legalized it" federalization means that states can only make laws more strict if federal law already has something on the books about it.

Yes state rights matter, but if the Federal government already says "X is illegal" the states can can't do anything about it [if they don't like it] apart from maybe trying the "two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, and three-fourths of the states approve the amendment via ratifying conventions." method of constitutional amendment. Remember if there is a conflict in laws, the highest level succeeds the lower level*

*conflicts as in "Feds say its illegal states says its not", states are allowed to make laws that are more stringent then federal, but not the other way around.

This is one of the reasons even though I could legit qualify for medical weed I refuse to look at it as an option [including so called "recreational" is allowed here], just means the feds can easily get my info and arrest me for it.

true but even then that'd be a huge waste of resources. just because they can do something doesn't mean they will. :/

 

[Meat Target]

View attachment 1465493

How do you even talk to someone this stupid

Had to check the ratio on that one. Of course it's "conservative" Jennifer Rubin.

And scrolling through WaPo Twitter is my own personal Two Minutes Hate.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Constitution says otherwise. Last I checked, nowhere does the constitution say drugs are verboten. Which then takes up back to the 10th Amendment limiting the powers of the Federal Government.

Supremacy clause. It's illegal federally means it being legal at the state level doesn't mean shit, except for optics.

Frankly, the state legalization efforts should have been quashed by the feds years ago.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

true but even then that'd be a huge waste of resources. just because they can do something doesn't mean they will. :/

I agree but the threat is always there, even more so now, states are starting to "rebel' against the feds, the feds may need to show the states who is boss again.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

You understand that this violence is within the purview of the states and local leadership to deal with and not the federal government, right?

Why do you niggers not know your own laws? I swear to god, Americans are allergic to learning and education.
@Randall Fragg - This is why I know about Black Americans. Because your own people are too stupid to understand their own laws, national psychology and social shit.

Trump cannot run on a platform of local law and order. It's up to the states to get their shit in line.
Sending in federal police is a last ditch, serious attempt and it's supposed to only be a temporary situation.
They can only function within the purview of the U.S.C. - whilst the DHS has a wide purview, it's still not a substitute for local law enforcement. It cannot be by virtue of what it is. The scope is limited to the situation at hand and not beyond that.
It's not in Trump's wheelhouse, nor is it in Biden's wheelhouse. Biden can talk a lot of gobbledygook smack, but at the end of the day, he relies on the states' desire to bring about law and order, he's wholly at the whim of those in his party to toe the party line.
Why do you think that cracker has gone from being all about putting niggers in jail, to "abolish the police"?
He knows his party line has moved. His party line has moved SO far to the insane left, that he knows that those states have fuck all chance of toeing it, so he's like "yeah sure whatever, I'll abolish police" just so he can have some kind of veneer of party solidarity. He looks like he has the upper hand, but do you really think establishment crony Joe Biden really wants to have lawlessness? No. But he wants to be president, so he'll do whatever backflips he has to. He doesn't have any control whatsoever over the leftist fraction Dems. He's completely at their mercy.

Trump cannot do anything specific - he's sent the federal police in now and they're saying they're an unidentified militia. We all know that isn't true. Can you imagine if he invoked the insurrection act? Apart from the fact that they'd squeak and bounce over "Muh Trump Troops" even more, they actually would legally challenge it.

Wot? This is all such hilarious bullshit that it's funny. "Trumpers" as you call them do interact with more of the population as they make up more and more of the pop than they probably did back in 2016. Biden won't magically make this shit go away, and the die hards will keep pushing and pushing even if their corporate masters pull the plug. Sure, the busses might stop but there's still a clear core of violent thugs and the ringleaders.

For all of the power of the executive, the states and cities still have a lot of rights, this isn't like the UK where an angry phone call and bollocking off of the Prime Minister or Home Secretary will get your coppers out on the street actually doing their fucking jobs (see London 2011, Oxford 2020).

Also, all that Trump's done is let the narrative burn itself out, they're all screaming about how this is Trump and evil racism's fault, or white supremacy's fault... in cities and states that have been Democrat since their grandfathers time. Biden and Pelosi can stand and rant about how evil the system is... a system they've been part of for 48 years and 33 years respectively.

There's a thousand angles the Dems can now be attacked on, and Biden in particular. When the campaign finally swings into gear the loonie left that's basically captured the public discourse will continue to make stunts and its unknown how Biden will react when BLM or one of the other splinter groups tries to storm his stage, which will happen at some point.

The alternative is to hilarious curate all his performances and speeches, which results in well. Clinton 2016.

So y'all hopped on a wagon because some retard can't read? Like, did you see Donnie coming under fire and you started slobbering so much that the drool clouded your eyes? Let's get the relevant line:

Trump's response, though, has been pretty limp -- not in terms of what he can legally do, but in terms of his rhetoric and ability to get more of the country to turn against the protesters/rioters. He's running on Law & Order, so if he doesn't seem like he can actually sell that, he's in trouble. The longer this goes on with weak responses - or worse, Trump chasing after dumb shit after it's over like the nascar thing - the better Biden looks, even if he's just sleeping cozy in his coffin.

Spoiler: hit it, johnny

Legally, he cannot impose law and order if the local states refuse to do so. Even his actions in Portland pose an interesting legal challenge as to how federal-level arrests occur when clashing with local directives. Obviously, he cannot be the "Law & Order Candidate" by this alone. Instead, he has to consistently make strong cases as to why the rioters are wrong, how they're clashing with American ideals and are spewing fundamentally an erroneous vision of the country, how the state and local authorities are directly aiding and abetting the people burning down their cities. He should be pointing out how blackie's neighborhood is getting burned to the ground and the good progressives are cheering it on, or how the anti-cop protests got co-opted by radicals into an anti-america protest, and making the clear and obvious case that these two things clearly aren't related. He has done this a few times, but unconvincingly. Anytime he speaks, all eyes are on him - he should be using that, not tweeting some stupid shit while he's on the throne.

He should be avoiding taking stupid, petty fights and making the extremely plain and simple case - "You see Portland? That's the democratic ideal for America. Don't like that? Vote for me." Instead, he's making statements that obliquely seem butthurt about the removal of conferdate statues, the flag, and some dumb shit at nascar. That wins him points with his base and his base alone. "uhm well akshually, if you just view it from this very generous and very specific lens, and you watch these 5 2015 interviews where he earlier says he doesn't like the confederate shit, you would see..."

Between all your sewing together some straw, you tards missed the point that OPTICS is going to be key. The way things LOOK to your average mook who doesn't get a stiffy from finding a fucking politician to validate their existence, IE most of the voters in america beyond the dem/rep bases. Listen, I argued with lefties back in 2016 to the ends of the earth that their invincible heiress to the presidency wasn't so iron-clad as they believed (same as their grandfather-savior before her), and they stuck their fingers into their ears and went lalalalala all the way to the bank. Any suggestion that the democrats needed to focus and rethink their strategy would immediately get a snap reaction of dumb, tribal loyalty to their sovereign and the complete handwaving of all the obvious problems in the democratic platform. You are now doing that.

I'm not saying that Biden is a great candidate or that he'll fix the country or anything of that nature. I don't really like him OR Trump. But Biden's team is playing the smarter game. They're keeping him locked up, he's giving milquetoast statements that suggest he won't get in the way, and they're keeping gaffes at a minimum. He's got some policy prescriptions that promise (but don't dig into details) things that are generally popular. His support for the protesters is so waffling that he can pretty easily just follow public opinion and say "this has gone a little far" once his campaign staff tells him to and have, essentially, washed his hands of it. He's going to say that "this chaos is all the fault of Trump, dividing us" while he's busy fondling some scared looking child, and people will believe his pitch of "I'll get us out of this mess and return us to quiet normalcy." That seems to be what people are after, and by any metric of -change in the polls-, people have more faith in Biden.

This is the part where the Trump supporter goes, "Yeah, how did the polls help in 2016?" They helped by being prettymuch totally correct, just wrongly interpreted by the retards staffed at media companies. Hillary won the popular vote - that's the only thing that a national level poll can be used to predict. When you dig into state-by-state instances, polling in the important battleground swing states suggested that Trump had a narrow path to victory - and he won by those narrow paths. Not by a landslide in most of these states, but by a few tens of thousands of votes to squeeze it out. And that's as a dark-horse candidate running up against one of the least charismatic, most corrupt, and most generally disliked democratic politicians in modern history. Who made such great decisions while in government as running a private fucking email server for confidential information. Now Trump's got a record. Now he's running up against someone generally seen as affable - at the very least, much more liked than Hillary was. And where are we got now? Trump is slated to lose against Biden in almost every single battleground state by the numbers - he is at risk of losing fucking Texas. His approval ratings, steady for the last 4 years, have slumped. Whereas at the start of the year betting money was on him, now it's more split.

Now, you're free to ignore this, and free to assume that he's got a free win if he keeps his current "strategy". You'll be doing what the Clintonites did, but I guess it's better this time because some good ol' confirmation bias is the only way to gauge anything... which, well, is also exactly the stance that the Clintonites took.

If you loons want Trump to have a better shot of winning, pressure him to get his campaign in fucking gear. It's a slovenly mess and he's not doing himself any favors. He recently replaced one of his campaign bigwigs, so maybe he's aware of it. If the very suggestion that your dear leader's campaign is sloppy enrages you - if you decry any suggestion that the man isn't perfection itself as TDS!!!!! - then you need to get some perspective. This is a very loseable election for him, and the sooner he realizes it and gets his shit together, the better chance he has of sealing reelection. There's another chance for a black swan even - hell, maybe Biden could croak? - given that it is 2020, but you can't rely on any of that.

When it comes down to just looking at all of the data, all of the tactics, and all we know from 2016 - he's sloppy and he's making the wrong moves. Even fucking Dilbert man is getting critical with a lot of the Don's decisions. He could be playing this much, much smarter to boost his chances. If you're seeing "the dems have better policy ideas/the dems will handle the country better/the dems will definitely win" in my original, try to make an effort not to hair-trigger go into boilerplate responses the instant someone says anything mildly critical of orange jesus.

 

[muh_moobs]

So y'all hopped on a wagon because some retard can't read? Like, did you see Donnie coming under fire and you started slobbering so much that the drool clouded your eyes? Let's get the relevant line:

Spoiler: hit it, johnny

Legally, he cannot impose law and order if the local states refuse to do so. Even his actions in Portland pose an interesting legal challenge as to how federal-level arrests occur when clashing with local directives. Obviously, he cannot be the "Law & Order Candidate" by this alone. Instead, he has to consistently make strong cases as to why the rioters are wrong, how they're clashing with American ideals and are spewing fundamentally an erroneous vision of the country, how the state and local authorities are directly aiding and abetting the people burning down their cities. He should be pointing out how blackie's neighborhood is getting burned to the ground and the good progressives are cheering it on, or how the anti-cop protests got co-opted by radicals into an anti-america protest, and making the clear and obvious case that these two things clearly aren't related. He has done this a few times, but unconvincingly. Anytime he speaks, all eyes are on him - he should be using that, not tweeting some stupid shit while he's on the throne.

He should be avoiding taking stupid, petty fights and making the extremely plain and simple case - "You see Portland? That's the democratic ideal for America. Don't like that? Vote for me." Instead, he's making statements that obliquely seem butthurt about the removal of conferdate statues, the flag, and some dumb shit at nascar. That wins him points with his base and his base alone. "uhm well akshually, if you just view it from this very generous and very specific lens, and you watch these 5 2015 interviews where he earlier says he doesn't like the confederate shit, you would see..."

Between all your sewing together some straw, you tards missed the point that OPTICS is going to be key. The way things LOOK to your average mook who doesn't get a stiffy from finding a fucking politician to validate their existence, IE most of the voters in america beyond the dem/rep bases. Listen, I argued with lefties back in 2016 to the ends of the earth that their invincible heiress to the presidency wasn't so iron-clad as they believed (same as their grandfather-savior before her), and they stuck their fingers into their ears and went lalalalala all the way to the bank. Any suggestion that the democrats needed to focus and rethink their strategy would immediately get a snap reaction of dumb, tribal loyalty to their sovereign and the complete handwaving of all the obvious problems in the democratic platform. You are now doing that.

I'm not saying that Biden is a great candidate or that he'll fix the country or anything of that nature. I don't really like him OR Trump. But Biden's team is playing the smarter game. They're keeping him locked up, he's giving milquetoast statements that suggest he won't get in the way, and they're keeping gaffes at a minimum. He's got some policy prescriptions that promise (but don't dig into details) things that are generally popular. His support for the protesters is so waffling that he can pretty easily just follow public opinion and say "this has gone a little far" once his campaign staff tells him to and have, essentially, washed his hands of it. He's going to say that "this chaos is all the fault of Trump, dividing us" while he's busy fondling some scared looking child, and people will believe his pitch of "I'll get us out of this mess and return us to quiet normalcy." That seems to be what people are after, and by any metric of -change in the polls-, people have more faith in Biden.

This is the part where the Trump supporter goes, "Yeah, how did the polls help in 2016?" They helped by being prettymuch totally correct, just wrongly interpreted by the retards staffed at media companies. Hillary won the popular vote - that's the only thing that a national level poll can be used to predict. When you dig into state-by-state instances, polling in the important battleground swing states suggested that Trump had a narrow path to victory - and he won by those narrow paths. Not by a landslide in most of these states, but by a few tens of thousands of votes to squeeze it out. And that's as a dark-horse candidate running up against one of the least charismatic, most corrupt, and most generally disliked democratic politicians in modern history. Who made such great decisions while in government as running a private fucking email server for confidential information. Now Trump's got a record. Now he's running up against someone generally seen as affable - at the very least, much more liked than Hillary was. And where are we got now? Trump is slated to lose against Biden in almost every single battleground state by the numbers - he is at risk of losing fucking Texas. His approval ratings, steady for the last 4 years, have slumped. Whereas at the start of the year betting money was on him, now it's more split.

Now, you're free to ignore this, and free to assume that he's got a free win if he keeps his current "strategy". You'll be doing what the Clintonites did, but I guess it's better this time because some good ol' confirmation bias is the only way to gauge anything... which, well, is also exactly the stance that the Clintonites took.

If you loons want Trump to have a better shot of winning, pressure him to get his campaign in fucking gear. It's a slovenly mess and he's not doing himself any favors. He recently replaced one of his campaign bigwigs, so maybe he's aware of it. If the very suggestion that your dear leader's campaign is sloppy enrages you - if you decry any suggestion that the man isn't perfection itself as TDS!!!!! - then you need to get some perspective. This is a very loseable election for him, and the sooner he realizes it and gets his shit together, the better chance he has of sealing reelection. There's another chance for a black swan even - hell, maybe Biden could croak? - given that it is 2020, but you can't rely on any of that.

When it comes down to just looking at all of the data, all of the tactics, and all we know from 2016 - he's sloppy and he's making the wrong moves. Even fucking Dilbert man is getting critical with a lot of the Don's decisions. He could be playing this much, much smarter to boost his chances. If you're seeing "the dems have better policy ideas/the dems will handle the country better/the dems will definitely win" in my original, try to make an effort not to hair-trigger go into boilerplate responses the instant someone says anything mildly critical of orange jesus.

The evidence speaks for itself. The citizens are getting mad, and they know which party is responsible (HINT: Not the red one).

All Trump needs if this dies down in a one minute commercial showing footage of each city on fire along with the name, and end the ad asking "Do you really want more of this?" .

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

Legally, he cannot impose law and order if the local states refuse to do so

Wrong
10 USC § 252

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

10 USC § 253

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.

 

[Ruin]

The evidence speaks for itself. The citizens are getting mad, and they know which party is responsible (HINT: Not the red one).

All Trump needs if this dies down in a one minute commercial showing footage of each city on fire along with the name, and end the ad asking "Do you really want more of this?" .

What would re electing Trump do? All these cities are burning on his watch already.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

The evidence speaks for itself. The citizens are getting mad, and they know which party is responsible (HINT: Not the red one).

All Trump needs if this dies down in a one minute commercial showing footage of each city on fire along with the name, and end the ad asking "Do you really want more of this?" .

Do you often find yourself making fun of people giving placebos and essentially adopting slogans as the truth, the whole truth, and only the truth?
Turn that attention inwards; you're repeating mantras at this point.

Wrong
10 USC § 252

10 USC § 253

Those would immediately get challenged in a court as to whether these circumstances justified the use of force. If you truly, truly believe that this wouldn't occur, then you have to ask the question: "why has the law and order candidate not done so already?"

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Reason TV did a video on privatizing the police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy2Xla_urNI
https://archive.vn/wip/ViGaf
View attachment 1465418

So the result is to use... a couple of very small time examples during the time of transition in San Fran, and to ignore the massive pile of sins of, say, the Pinkertons, G4S, Securitas and others who all basically dabbled in either 1) Doing whatever the fuck the customer told them or 2) Outright military possibilities, with G4S once boasting a batallion's worth of ex squaddies to hand for anything up to "medium level conflicts".

Detroit Threat Management, for example, has a staff of 60 people... and a client list of:

5,000 people, 100 businesses. Meaning an average of one member of VIPER for every 80 people.

To give some context on that, NYPD, the largest police force in the United States has an average of one officer for every 221 people.

Its not going to be scalable for the people and how they want it. Nobody pays their subs in a whole district? Whoops, no cops for you.

This is the worst possible outcome for huge, huge swathes of cities who simply won't be able to afford it.

So what will happen? Oh. Cities will have to do deals won't they?

Then we're back in the start again.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

What would re electing Trump do? All these cities are burning on his watch already.

He reportedly offered federal assistance to them and they said "Get fucked", hes playing the "Look I offered it to them, they said no, states rights" card most likely to try and make the DNC look bad since they refused help to stop their cities from burning.

Let us also be honest here, If he did something "TYRANT NAZI" headlines, if he does nothing there will still be bad headlines about Trump.

Those would immediately get challenged in a court as to whether these circumstances justified the use of force. If you truly, truly believe that this wouldn't occur, then you have to ask the question: "why has the law and order candidate not done so already?"

The Federal government has invoked it in the past under lesser circumstances (e.g. the 101st Airborn enforcing desegregation).

 

[muh_moobs]

This isn't behavior that merits jail. It merits being put in a zoo.

You spelled "gulag" wrong.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

He reportedly offered federal assistance to them and they said "Get fucked", hes playing the "Look I offered it to them, they said no, states rights" card most likely to try and make the DNC look bad since they refused help to stop their cities from burning.

Let us also be honest here, If he did something "TYRANT NAZI" headlines, if he does nothing there will still be bad headlines about Trump.

Correct. That's why he should be, every day, doing an 'update' on the situation in various major metropolitan cities. He should almost every day make clear that the feds are available and ready to help restore order, and EVERY DAY the man should be throwing shade at the mayors and governors letting it happen.

He recently suggested doing a daily coronavirus panel... without any experts. That is a stupid idea that caught flak as it deserves. Imagine, instead, if he just summarized the vandalism/damage/violence in the various cities day by day and pointed out the mayors and politicians covering for it? That would be a much better use of the man's time, and it would play to his strength - being a biting entertainer.

 

[Meat Target]

You spelled "gulag" wrong.

But we can't make/watch them dance for kibble if they're in the gulag (would never pass muster as a TV show or livestream).