top 57 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or, hear me out here, because I know this is complicated:

Just don't be a nazi

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    The modern brand of Nazis don't even dress snappily, that was their only real appeal.

  • source
  • [+] -54 points 1 year ago (52 children)

    Good idea maybe the protesters should stop wearing masks to hide from being accountable for their illegal actions.

  • source
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (41 children)

    Protesting isn't illegal, but y'all treating it like it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 1 year ago (40 children)

    Throwing bricks, looting, and setting cars on fire is tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [+] 23 points 1 year ago (31 children)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    B-b-but whatabout all the rich people's stuff 👉👈 🥺? Someday, I could have all of that rich people stuff and that could be my stuff on fire and that would make me so sad!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    The breakdown of the law is the breakdown of the law who cares who's stuff it is. That's also ignore the brick throwing (also known as assault with a deadly weapon)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You absolutely correct. Breakdown of the law has been a problem in the US since the hard bank right into fascism. But I am way less bothered by throwing bricks at the cosplaying nazis and way more bothered by the unitary executive bullshit. We should have a president, which should be a glorified administrator working for the legislature. Not a king that ignores the law. If we need to burn some of the oligarchy's shit to remind the orange asshole of this, so be it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The execute bullshit is a legal power granted to the president. The brick throwing is literally assault with a deadly weapon I don't see how u can justify that. It doesn't matter what u think the president should be it matters what the laws of the country state that the president is. What laws are being broken in the case of la (well except the rioters)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    1. deportations by ice without due process in violation of court orders (this is what the people in LA are directly protesting)

    2. the president commandeering the national guard for domestic use in absence of an invasion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    1. U have been misled. All people deported have already been issued with "final orders of removal" at which point the supreme court agrees you no longer have any right to due process. As that was forfeit when you failed to turn up to ur court appearance. Ie illegal immigrants where told hey ur here illegally come make ur case or ur getting deported. Said illegal immigrants then failed to show up at which point they where issued with "final orders of removal" most of these illegal immigrants where issued this years ago and have simply been illegally in the country ever since.

    2. "10 U.S.C. 12406," within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Doesn't need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Not according to the Constitution which grants these powers to the Supreme Court who have stated that what Trump is doing is illegal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "10 U.S.C. 12406," within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Doesn't need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.

    Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Is a riot actually a rebellion? No. Is breaking the law a rebellious act? No.

    Was January 6 a riot or a rebellion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    A riot and attempted rebellion. Trump wanted the nation guard their and was blocked by the local govner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    The only people who have done anything illegal are the rioters. U might not like what trumps doing but it is entirely within the rule of law

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Point of order:

    "Illegal" isn't always "immoral". "Legal" isn't always "moral".

    If one's best defense is "it's not technically illegal", that's a very weak spot to be in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    So ur advocating for breaking the law if u personally think the law is immortal?

    Isn't that exactly what the jan6 insurrectionists where doing?

    Or are you the arbiter of morality and everyone else immoral?

    Eat your cake or have it u can't have both.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Dude, you're a muppet if you think everything he has done is within the law. The only reason he is getting away with breaking the law is because the only check is the legislature's power of impeachment and it has been captured by the fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Related to la what has he done that's illegal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard In Federal Service

    (3): [...] Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states

    Trump specifically did not engage with Newsom in commandeering CA National Guard troops.

    18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus

    Whoever, except in cases and under the circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

    Using the military for ICE enforcement is against the law.

    Want more information? https://youtu.be/zJ7Dfca4_y8

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    "10 U.S.C. 12406," within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Doesn't need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.

    Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard In Federal Service

    (3): […] Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states

    Trump specifically did not engage with Newsom in commandeering CA National Guard troops.

    You skipped over reading this part.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    is by definition a rebellious act.

    This is conflating "rebellious" with a rebellion. Rebellion is an uprising that resists and is organized against one's government. The scale and degree matter, here. Your definition would turn any civil disobedience into a "rebellion" which is farcical on its face.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So an organised resistance of ice (the federal government) from carrying out their duty. On a scale large enough that the local police could not maintain the laws of the nation. Is that of sufficient scale and resistance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No. That is far, far below sufficient. An example of a rebellion is when the confederacy decided slaves were more important than unity and literally attempted to form another government. There are many other examples of rebellion you can draw from history, and from fiction that all seek usurping power and wholesale replacement of the existing government. That is a whole different ballgame than harassing some cosplaying nazis that are overstepping the bounds of civility and getting butthurt that people aren't licking their boots.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Maybe a fucking insurrection on Jan 6?

    Maybe raping fucking toddlers (Epstein files, which he's starkly refused to release)?

    Or, maybe ordering ICE to blockade traffic in order to deliberately incite chaos as an excuse to use the army.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Did u read the part of my comment when I said in relation to la? The ironic thing is that jan6 was more peicful than what's happening lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What is your sentiments on the looting of the capital on January 6th then? By that logic they should all be in jail for life for such a substantial escalation relatively speaking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's not a comparison you want made. Maybe life might be a bit harsh but they should all have gotten long sentences. Not to mention that the jan6 rioters where more peaceful than these rioters. Ohh and jan6 happened because trump didn't/was blocked from calling in the national guard to protect the city. So ur right but this doesn't help your case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Trump wasn't allowed to call the national guard because he wasn't president anymore you moron.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Trump was acting president on January 6th. The event that the insurrectionists were there to stop was the ratification of the election naming Joe Biden as the President starting on January 20th.

    Trump made the decision to not call in the National guard to help stop the insurrection which if carried out would have most likely left Trump in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    May I suggest reading a history book? "Lies My Teacher Told Me" is excellent. "A People's History of the United States" is also great. Or, maybe you would like to understand how you've been manipulated. Well, cool, maybe "Manufacturing Consent."

    One of the significant contradictions of democracy in the US is that it was largely shaped by various forms of illegal civil disobedience against entrenched power structures. Such civil disobedience is retrospectively seen as justified, committed by people who are retrospectively seen as heroes. But each successive generation is demanded to believe that any further civil disobedience is unreasonable.

    Just a small selection of a long history of US civil disobedience:

    • Boston Tea Party
    • Great Railroad Strike
    • Haymarket affair
    • Battle of Blair Mountain - largest armed insurrection in America since the Civil War
    • Selma to Montgomery Marches

    There is a lot we get to take for granted from our comfortable, privileged perches built with the blood and tears of those who would perform civil disobedience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Maybe the ICE officers should also stop wearing masks to hide from being accountable for their illegal actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Except their actions aren't illegal. And what does accountable mean? Cos from what I've seen accountable means death threats to the individual and their families.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Extraordinary rendition is absolutely illegal, especially when it is done without due process and against a court's order such as the case of Garcia or the dozens of other people flown to CECOT. "Just following orders" isn't a defense. And I'm sorry to say, but as a federal law enforcement officer, they specifically chose to put themselves and their families on the line for their country. That's why they are paid and trained and supplied with all manner of paramilitary equipment. What cowards to hide behind masks. They should be proud of the job they are doing and be recognized for it since it is totally within the confines of the law, right? And even more so, to hide behind their families' "safety" as if that absolves them from their shit behavior. No masks for law enforcement. They are public servants and must follow the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Kinda like what the protesters deal with? Force needs to meets force with equal measures or it is overrun. You don't deal with fascism by laying down and playing dead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not sure how u are comparing deportation to death threats? Are u advocating for literally fighting the federal government with force? Cos if so that is by definition a rebellion or at a minimum of an attempted rebellion. You do realise by saying this you have met the requirements for the president to call in the national guard without the governors approval.

    "10 U.S.C. 12406," within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government.

    U yourself just provided evidence to support the use of federal troops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Good thing I'm not American then, eh. Human nature is what it is. Escalation happens on both sides, legally and illegally. Do you expect people to just lie down and take it. Boy, you're gonna get some education here real soon like.

  • source
  • parent