Are we now in full blown fascist totalitarianism?

[TSwizzle]

A more simple way would've been to more tightly seal the borders and deport those who are arrested or stopped for another potential offense.

The first part appears to have been taken care of but then you have the so called "sanctuary cities" actively working against that.

When I need to use a police officer {snip}

I was referring to the "sanctuary city" policies of non cooperation with ICE, i.e. where they fail to inform ICE of arrests of illegals eligible for deportation. The bolded part.

 

[RVonse]

It's more complicated than most people think due to procedural issues. The border issue did/does need addressing and deportation is a key aspect of that. However, the way it's being done is way too heavy handed, and even worse is that Trump has his paramilitary force (ICE) and is recruiting more every single day.

A more simple way would've been to more tightly seal the borders and deport those who are arrested or stopped for another potential offense. In the long run it would've been better for the entire country and certainly more humane than what's happening now. At the same time, we wouldn't be threatened by what appears to be an inevitable loss of many civil liberties.

Your solution certainly sounds reasonable until I clearly remember what just happened during the Biden administration. Massive wide open borders with huge incentives to cross illegally. Ridiculous excuses from Democrat leaders how they were actually doing everything they could....when everyone who had an IQ of 5 or more knew otherwise. In wake of those recent Democrat actions, MAGA is now compelled to do things today which should not be reasonable in a civilized society. Because MAGA is the only adult in the room today.

The interesting part is that I can remember (not that long ago) when Democrats (like Bill Clinton) were as opposed to illegal crossings as the MAGA crowd is today. What happened to that? Many on the conservative side think Democrat leaders have been captured by votes from people who live off tax payers that has reached a majority today. I don't know about that but what I do know is that the borders have to be secure in some fashion better than the Democrats are doing or we won't have a country anymore. If for no other reason there will be more people taking tax revenue than people paying taxes.

So how else other than what the Republicans are doing today do you de-incentivize border illegal border crossings in the future? Because sooner or later the country will be governed by Democrats who will just repeat what Biden just did.

I view what MAGA is doing as a "hail Mary" just to save the country at this point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who got charged with insurrection? Less alone convicted with insurrection.

Who got charged with insurrection in the 1770s, when the founders of the USA engaged in insurrection (and treason, which nobody was charged with either) against King George III?

Charges, indictments and convictions are not a necessary outcome of crimes; Many of the most successful crimes never result in these things.

It's because of British legal tradition at the time. Trials in absentia weren’t done in 18th-century English common law. All the founding fathers were wanted for high treason. So if they would have been caught and brought to justice, then the would have been charged, and found guilty. There's no way they could have wiggled out of that. Especially since UK was a monarchy and courts were stacked with the kings men. So we don't have to speculate how that would have played out.

English common law works on precedents. There's a precedent in Cromwell. The same thing would have happened to the founding fathers as happened to Cromwell. Their heads would have been displayed on spikes atop Westminster Hall.

Nobody was ever charged with the Whitechapel murders, much less convicted of them; But the victims were murdered nonetheless.

Is the argument that there was a coup in USA and that Biden became the president following that, and that's evidence of what exactly?

As I recall the rioters were convicted of rioting. But not insurection. That capitol rioters had an explicit goal. They thought the democrats had violated the democratic process and cheated their way to power. They were there in defence of democracy. Not there to stop it.

Or to put it another way, they were charged with studpidity, not maliciousness. That's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

RE: "Especially since UK was a monarchy", over a hundred years before George III became king, King Charles I was executed to show the supremacy of parliament over the king. This means any actions Britain would take would not be simply because of the monarch, but as parliament would decide.
RE: "They were there in defence of democracy", no they weren't. Even if they believed that was so, it was not the actual actions. Anyway, they weren't so idealistic, they were there because they wanted their man to be POTUS. It is like if fans of a sports team didn't like the umpire's decision, and decided to invade the field (although of course much more serious than this analogy).

The parliament were also in favour of the colonies being obedient. It was the parliament that passed the stamp tax law that created the mess in the American colonies

 

[crazyfingers]

So the InJustice Department is investigating George Soros's organization. And their opening salvo does nothing to support the InJD's claim.

Report on Soros Cited by Justice Dept. Does Not Show Funding for Terrorism​

The head of a conservative watchdog organization acknowledged that its report did not find evidence that the network of liberal billionaire George Soros had broken the law.

When the Justice Department urged federal prosecutors last month to investigate the billionaire George Soros, it cited a report by a conservative watchdog group that accused the liberal megadonor of financing groups “tied to terrorism or extremist violence.”

But the report by Washington-based Capital Research Center does not show evidence that Mr. Soros’s network knowingly paid for its grantees to break the law, which legal experts said would be necessary to build a criminal case.

In fact, the report does not offer proof that groups that received money from the Soros-backed Open Society Foundations used those donations to commit acts of violence or terrorism.

Scott Walter, the president of Capital Research Center, agreed that his group had not found evidence that the Soros network had committed a crime.

“We were surprised when the Justice Department suggested federal prosecutors use our report. No administration official asked us to prepare it, nor did we suggest the administration use it,” Mr. Walter said in a statement, adding that “only lawbreaking, not mere speech, should receive prosecution.” A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

Report on Soros Cited by Justice Dept. Does Not Show Funding for Terrorism

The head of a conservative watchdog organization acknowledged that its report did not find evidence that the network of liberal billionaire George Soros had broken the law.

www.nytimes.com

So when the InJustice Department harasses the Soros group, the group can now point to this example that the InJustice Department had no actual evidence of any wrongdoing before starting an investigation. InJustice in America.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A more simple way would've been to more tightly seal the borders and deport those who are arrested or stopped for another potential offense.

The first part appears to have been taken care of but then you have the so called "sanctuary cities" actively working against that.

When I need to use a police officer {snip}

I was referring to the "sanctuary city" policies of non cooperation with ICE, i.e. where they fail to inform ICE of arrests of illegals eligible for deportation. The bolded part.

So was I. You think money floats down from the sky because "illegals"?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

A more simple way would've been to more tightly seal the borders and deport those who are arrested or stopped for another potential offense.

The first part appears to have been taken care of but then you have the so called "sanctuary cities" actively working against that.

When I need to use a police officer {snip}

I was referring to the "sanctuary city" policies of non cooperation with ICE, i.e. where they fail to inform ICE of arrests of illegals eligible for deportation. The bolded part.

So was I. You think money floats down from the sky because "illegals"?

It does for the fed if that's what it desires.

"I ain't a-shoulda have to pay fer that!" applies to fixing the homeless problem they love to hate. However, when it comes to TrumpCo sending out federal agencies where they weren't requested for reasons that don't exist, Trumpites won't even begin to question the costs. It simply doesn't occur to them.

How much is the deployment of federal personnel to to Portland costing us? Who the fuck cares when it's a burnt out shell of city amidst unconscionable rioting? Never mind that's not reality in our time in that city on this planet. The dupes who support Trump will not question those costs.

What's so unsettling, but what we've become accustomed to are things like, "... non cooperation with ICE, i.e. where they fail to inform ICE..."

It's the notion that certain cities in certain states should be required to be informants for X reasons; as if these places know all of these things anyway. Are citizens in Texas required to inform the local police when a woman leaves the state for an abortion? It would certainly be consistent with the reasoning of "conservatives."

Now excuse me while I go back to watching shitty horror movies.

 

[unapologetic]

Donald Trump and fascism

Fascism in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[unapologetic]

A Judge’s Home Exploded

 

[Colonel Sanders]

A Judge’s Home Exploded

There's no evidence it was a politically motivated bombing. And that video is cringe conspiracy theory bullshit by some edgelord dork who's watched too many movies, but wouldn't actually fight if needed. There are already enough real things happening that are of grave concern. We don't need this nonsense.

 

[Politesse]

A Judge’s Home Exploded

There's no evidence it was a politically motivated bombing. And that video is cringe conspiracy theory bullshit by some edgelord dork who's watched too many movies, but wouldn't actually fight if needed. There are already enough real things happening that are of grave concern. We don't need this nonsense.

You realize that makes you sound as naive as those who genuinely believe that Putin's critics just so happen to fall deadly ill with rare disases right after saying something that offended him?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Your solution certainly sounds reasonable until I clearly remember what just happened during the Biden administration. Massive wide open borders with huge incentives to cross illegally.

Waitamminut. I thought things were so bad under Biden with skyrocketing prices that no one would want to come here. Are you saying other countries had it worse because the price rises were part of a global phenomenon, not particular to any Administration's policies and so all the screaming about Biden was just propaganda?

 

[RVonse]

Waitamminut. I thought things were so bad under Biden with skyrocketing prices that no one would want to come here.

You certainly were not paying attention then. The draw for them was not US inflation. It was access to unskilled labor markets and free government services. Combined with absolutely no policing of the US border.