jakee

What sound did your irony meter just make?

I'm not sure what 'it' is in that sentence?

Because you're not attacking anyone, obviously

.

Do you have to be so sensitive? I’ve literally no idea how you think I’ve just attacked you.

You keep saying Democrats should grow a pair and start following the R’s playbook. So why fall over yourself to apologise for shit that doesn’t matter? Every white American is allowed to be proud of the countries their ancestors came from, so Mexican Americans should be no different. The correct PR play here is to tell anyone on the right to fuck off with their racist bullshit, then mock them for being afraid that some colours on a flag might hurt them.

You can’t demand that an entire unorganised mob of people all act in the best, smartest, most rational way possible. It’s impossible, never gonna happen. Instead, you could point out to those rightwing snowflake Karens that if they’ve never previously complained about the offensiveness of seeing Irish flags fly in Boston on St Paddy’s day then maybe their racist asses can shut the fuck up about these flags?

And that’s what you voted for.

In other words, you were totally wrong both about what the law says and whether the law is actually a barrier on what the President can and can’t do?

On the evidence of this thread it seems extremely unlikely that you have actually looked that up.

So you are going to keep lying and gaslighting instead of admitting the mistakes which have been clearly pointed out to you by the sources you introduced? Even though it’s so incredibly obvious that you’re doing it? The weird thing is that there would have been no shame at all in being wrong before you looked at the evidence. So why did you instead decide to get your shovel out and start digging?

Better than the US? Well yeah - trying and really obviously succeeding. Now though - react to stop gaslighting and admit that you were completely wrong regarding martial law, and either misunderstood or misrepresented every one of your sources?

Sure - so any person who’s been victimised by an American citizen who got away with and wants habeus corpus, the 4th amendment, the right to representation and a fair trial etc to all be thrown out should be taken seriously.

They lost that right when they fell over themselves to celebrate and venerate the Jan 6th rioters. This is really another example of the folly of 'both-siderism', as I'm sure plenty of people will line up to claim that because the libs are hypocrites about some things then there's no difference between them and the new right being hypocrites about this. It's bollocks, really. MAGA and the new Republican party are very different and very dangerous.

I'm pretty sure there's no chance of anyone failing to notice what I did.

Yeah

Since the US has the highest number of inmates in the world by far and the highest per capita of any functioning democracy, I'd say those folks are called Americans - wouldn't you?

Like I said before - you know that your entire argument is false and instead of just admitting you fucked up because you couldn't be arsed to read anything properly you are now just flat out lying and gaslighting everyone. When Ken said this: in practice, the President can invoke martial law on a national level, you said this Ken, you do not cite a source, so I don't know where you got this, but it is inaccurate. "The Posse Comitatus Act creates a general rule that it is unlawful for federal military forces to engage in civilian law enforcement activities - even if they are merely supplementing rather than supplanting civilian authorities - except when doing so is expressly authorized by Congress." even though your own source explicitly told you that 'general rule' did not apply to insurrection / martial law. Now instead of just acknowledging you mistake you are lying to cover it up. You then said there was something somewhere in 10USC 271-184 that would back you up, even though 278 explicitly told you that the entire chapter makes no restriction whatsoever on anything that the President can do with the military. Now instead of acknowledging your mistake you are lying to cover it up. I literally just told you that. I made it really, really clear. Telling me that should be my argument when you know damn well it is my argument is, once again, blatant lies and gaslighting on your part. And again - think how that affects what you are trying to say. You said the President cannot enact martial law. Do you seriously not see from what I said above (that you clearly agree with since you just said it back to me) that regardless of your misrepresentations of the law, in the real world in which we both live the President absolutely can declare martial law if he wants to?

You know that's a lie. You know that the only sources you've put forward so far say that in general the President is not allowed to deploy the Armed Forces to assist law enforcement. You know that I just explained that in the part of the post you didn't quote. You know that you are ignoring the very clear statements in your sources, that I have shown you, which say martial law / insurrection etc is an exception to any of those limits. You know you are pretending that the general case is the absolute case and you know that it is a lie. In that context you are then ignoring the fact that the situation on the ground, today, is exactly what you are saying the President is not allowed to do. So even if we accept your overall argument (which you know is false), what in reality is the check against the President declaring martial law - since he's already doing the thing which you say is illegal?

The funny / truly scary thing here is the denial of the street level reality of what is actually happening in the real world, today. It's clear now that your argument relies on conflating martial law with Posse Comitatus even though you know they are two completely different things. What you're really claiming is that the President can't deploy the National Guard, State Governors have to take the decision to deploy the National Guard within their own States. But here's the thing, you do understand that the National Guard is in LA right now, doing law enforcement, right? You do understand that Newsom didn't send them there or want them there, Trump sent them there, right? You do understand that no one is stopping him from doing it, right? So another way of stating your argument is that the president can't declare martial law because the President isn't allowed to do what he is currently (successfully) doing. You get why (even if the foundation of that argument wasn't as fatally flawed as it is) it's not remotely reassuring, don't you?

You mean the tactic of reading the documents you have supplied but couldn't be bothered to look at, and explaining why they actually say the opposite of what you claim they do? I can see why that would be frustrating for you if you only want to win an argument rather than find out whether or not you are actually right. Actually in this case, since I already told you to read section 278 (Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before December 1, 1981) then it's surely not that you couldn't be bothered to read that one sentence, it's that you are attempting to actively mislead and gaslight everyone here about the law. Why do you do it? Plenty of people here are under the impression that you're a reasonable person - why are you so hell bent on proving them wrong?

Use your words. The words "oh shit I was completely wrong" would be most appropriate, but if you still think you have a leg to stand on then you need to explain what it is. Fair warning though - before you do that you should read § 278, and really try to understand it. That is rich given that your entire argument so far rests on the Posse Comitatus act - when your own source explicitly tells you it explicitly does not apply in times of martial law.

Yeah, to throw someone out. That’s exactly what it means. Poor little cupcake, if you think this is boundless violent rhetoric you must find the world to be a very scary and overwhelming place.

Lol, that’s a blatant lie! A man was murdered on the street in broad daylight in front of a crowd of witnesses and even though you know he’s guilty you think the murderer should be immune from punishment. That’s not nothing. (You even appear to think that since he is locked up he should have a special ‘nice’ prison built for him so he doesn’t have to stay in the ‘nasty’ prisons that you think all other convicts should be housed in). Piers Morgan is a professional asshole and hypocrite who I’m not going to gift a single view to. If he told me the grass was green I’d go outside and check.

This was in the second paragraph of Ms Elsea’s report. The express statutory exceptions include the legislation that allows the President to use military force to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority, So it’s pretty clear where you got your idea from, you just invented it - and it is inaccurate as it gets.