"You have no say in this at all" - Stephen Miller

[Walt]

Since Reagan, every single time a Republican was in office the idiot democrats claim they will declare themself dictator and refuse to leave office.

trump is talking about having a third term. Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama did not talk about having a third term. The last President to run for a third term was FDR, and it was allowed back then.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I support due process and dealing with undocumented/illegal immigrants in a way that respects the fact that most of them are just trying to make a decent living. I also note you didn't respond to my mentioning of the January 6 event. What do you think of those involved in that event?

Why do you support rioting, arson, looting, fighting lawful authority, organized crime, and illegal aliens??

 

[Into the Night]

States are free to set even more draconian envtl. standards than the federal limits. They just can't lessen them. Just like states can enact stricter gun control laws than federal law has but they cannot ban gun ownership.

States cannot constitutionally enact gun control of any kind.
Neither can the federal government.

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!!

 

[Into the Night]

No, why would it be? California is a single state. States are permitted to make federal regulations tougher; they cannot weaken them. Until Roe v Wade was overturned, states could not ban abortion outright. They could, however, make it more difficult to obtain. Now, of course, we have some states where it is almost totally illegal (MO is one of them), and others where it is not. Abortion is a good illustration of the mismatched, misshapen quilt of laws pertaining to that medical procedure. We have some states (MO, again, is one of them) threatening to prosecute female residents of that state who leave the state in order to obtain an abortion. That is a good example of why the procedure should be addressed at the national level.

Why do you hate children?

 

[Into the Night]

trump is talking about having a third term. Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama did not talk about having a third term. The last President to run for a third term was FDR, and it was allowed back then.

Obama had a third term (using Biden as Chief Puppet), Wally.

** whiff! ** Riiiiiiight over your head!

 

[Uncensored2008]

trump is talking about having a third term.

The way Obama did?

Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama did not talk about having a third term. The last President to run for a third term was FDR, and it was allowed back then.

Trump plays the National Socialist democrats like a fiddle.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why do you support rioting, arson, looting, fighting lawful authority, organized crime, and illegal aliens??

LIF. Grow up

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The way Obama did?

Trump plays the National Socialist democrats like a fiddle.

Random words. No apparent coherency.

 

[Scott]

One man's insurrection is another man's freedom fighting. Most J6ers probably have a good understanding of this. One thing I think some may have forgotten is why these riots started. Wikipedia's page on the LA protests (a title which is being contested) get into it:
**
Beginning on June 6, 2025, protests against immigration raids have taken place within Los Angeles County, California, United States. Protests began in Los Angeles when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided several city locations under the pretext of illegal immigration, among other supposed violations.

On June 6, protests against the raids turned into street riots when protestors clashed with the Los Angeles Police Department and ICE. On June 7, protestors clashed with federal forces in Paramount and Compton during raids.
**

Source:

June 2025 Los Angeles protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a question that really should be asked- were the ICE raids a good idea? I strongly doubt it. Raids generally entail some degree of violence, and violence tends to beget more violence. From this, we get to a more important question- what's the best way to -end- the protests, or "unrest" as I imagine the more right wingers would like to call it? I suspect that looking into the reasoning for the raids would be the best place to start. Trump, on the other hand, seems to think that adding yet more violence by sending the National Guard and even considering sending in military marines is the way to go. I really don't think this line of reasoning will lead anywhere good. As a right winger here pointed out, one man has already died. How many more might die if things continue this way?

So you support the rioters, illegal aliens, and organized crime.

No, I support due process and dealing with undocumented/illegal immigrants in a way that respects the fact that most of them are just trying to make a decent living. I also note you didn't respond to my mentioning of the January 6 event. What do you think of those involved in that event?

Why do you support rioting, arson, looting, fighting lawful authority, organized crime, and illegal aliens??

The questions a person asks and the language they use to describe people can say a lot about a person. Anyway, here's my answer to your 6 questions:
1, 2 and 3- Rioting, arson and looting- No, I don't. However, I think it's understandable that some might turn to these things if they feel that the law is lacking in justice. I've also seen plenty of evidence of false flag operations in things a bit of rioting and property damage, so like others here, I don't rule out that at least some of these things weren't actually done by people who had a beef with the ICE raids and any subsequence law enforcement response.

4- fighting lawful authority-Depends on whether the lawful authority is acting in a just manner. There's a great line in the original Dune book from Duke Leto Atreides, father of Paul Atreides shortly before he meets his end:
**
“Justice?’ The Duke looked at the man. ‘Who asks for justice? We make our own justice. We make it here on Arrakis – win or die.”
**

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't value in asking for justice, using the courts, etc., I'm just saying that there comes a time when some people decide that the only way they're going to get justice is to engage methods that may not follow the laws of the day. Most people would agree that that's a good thing when it came to Germans opposing the Nazis or Americans rebelling against Britain, but it can frequently be more controversial as to whether a given action is merited or not when it comes to current issues.

5- organized crime- It depends what crimes a given organization is committing. I imagine Britain would have been fine with American revolutionaries being labelled as organized criminals. A more recent controversy would be whether what some people on January 6, 2020 should be considered a crime or not. I'm sure you're aware that this is a controversial issue.

6- I still think this is the best video to get people back to reality with all this talk of "illegal aliens":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83LPlgKwlQ0&ab_channel=BingeSociety

 

[Into the Night]

LIF. Grow up

Not an answer. Evasion. Answer the question put to you: Why do you support rioting, arson, looting, fighting lawful authority, organized crime, and illegal aliens??

 

[Into the Night]

The questions a person asks and the language they use to describe people can say a lot about a person. Anyway, here's my answer to your 6 questions:
1, 2 and 3- Rioting, arson and looting- No, I don't. However, I think it's understandable that some might turn to these things if they feel that the law is lacking in justice. I've also seen plenty of evidence of false flag operations in things a bit of rioting and property damage, so like others here, I don't rule out that at least some of these things weren't actually done by people who had a beef with the ICE raids and any subsequence law enforcement response.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Which is it, dude??

4- fighting lawful authority-Depends on whether the lawful authority is acting in a just manner. There's a great line in the original Dune book from Duke Leto Atreides, father of Paul Atreides shortly before he meets his end:
**
“Justice?’ The Duke looked at the man. ‘Who asks for justice? We make our own justice. We make it here on Arrakis – win or die.”
**

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't value in asking for justice, using the courts, etc., I'm just saying that there comes a time when some people decide that the only way they're going to get justice is to engage methods that may not follow the laws of the day. Most people would agree that that's a good thing when it came to Germans opposing the Nazis or Americans rebelling against Britain, but it can frequently be more controversial as to whether a given action is merited or not when it comes to current issues.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Which is it, dude??

5- organized crime- It depends what crimes a given organization is committing. I imagine Britain would have been fine with American revolutionaries being labelled as organized criminals. A more recent controversy would be whether what some people on January 6, 2020 should be considered a crime or not. I'm sure you're aware that this is a controversial issue.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Which is it, dude??

6- I still think this is the best video to get people back to reality with all this talk of "illegal aliens":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83LPlgKwlQ0&ab_channel=BingeSociety

That won't work, Scott. Illegal aliens are criminals. They are immediately subject to deportation.

You have locked yourself in three paradoxes in just this post. It is irrational to argue both sides of any paradox. You MUST choose one of the conflicting arguments and utterly discard the other. That is the ONLY way to resolve and clear your paradoxes.

 

[Scott]

The questions a person asks and the language they use to describe people can say a lot about a person. Anyway, here's my answer to your 6 questions:
1, 2 and 3- Rioting, arson and looting- No, I don't. However, I think it's understandable that some might turn to these things if they feel that the law is lacking in justice. I've also seen plenty of evidence of false flag operations in things a bit of rioting and property damage, so like others here, I don't rule out that at least some of these things weren't actually done by people who had a beef with the ICE raids and any subsequence law enforcement response.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Which is it, dude??

When it came to your first 3 questions, my initial response was actually pretty clear- can't get much clearer than "No, I don't". It seems that you didn't like what I had to say -after- that, without getting into any details as to why you didn't like the following sentences.

 

[Scott]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Which is it, dude??

Your repeated response to my questions 4 and 5 makes me think of a question where one is only allowed to response with either a "yes" or a "no". Some questions really can be answered in this fashion, but others can't. A classic example is that of a man being asked if he had stopped beating his wife. If he says yes, it suggests he had done so in the past and if he says no, it suggests that he's still beating her. Clearly, if the man had -never- beat his wife, then the correct answer has to be something like "I never beat her", not this yes/no dichotomy.

 

[Into the Night]

When it came to your first 3 questions, my initial response was actually pretty clear- can't get much clearer than "No, I don't". It seems that you didn't like what I had to say -after- that, without getting into any details as to why you didn't like the following sentences.

Denying your paradoxes won't clear them. Which is it, dude??

 

[Scott]

6- I still think this is the best video to get people back to reality with all this talk of "illegal aliens":

That won't work, Scott.

I disagree, I think that video clip is the best response to all this "illegal alien" banter I've ever seen.

 

[Into the Night]

Your repeated response to my questions 4 and 5 makes me think of a question where one is only allowed to response with either a "yes" or a "no". Some questions really can be answered in this fashion, but others can't. A classic example is that of a man being asked if he had stopped beating his wife. If he says yes, it suggests he had done so in the past and if he says no, it suggests that he's still beating her. Clearly, if the man had -never- beat his wife, then the correct answer has to be something like "I never beat her", not this yes/no dichotomy.

Word games won't help you. You cannot clear your paradoxes by denying them. You MUST choose only ONE of the conflicting arguments and utterly discard the other.

 

[Into the Night]

I disagree, I think that video clip is the best response to all this "illegal alien" banter I've ever seen.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Illegal aliens have broken the law and are immediately subject to deportation.

 

[Scott]

Why do you support rioting, arson, looting [snip]

1, 2 and 3- Rioting, arson and looting- No, I don't. However, I think it's understandable that some might turn to these things if they feel that the law is lacking in justice. I've also seen plenty of evidence of false flag operations in things a bit of rioting and property damage, so like others here, I don't rule out that at least some of these things weren't actually done by people who had a beef with the ICE raids and any subsequence law enforcement response.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Which is it, dude??

When it came to your first 3 questions, my initial response was actually pretty clear- can't get much clearer than "No, I don't". It seems that you didn't like what I had to say -after- that, without getting into any details as to why you didn't like the following sentences.

Denying your paradoxes won't clear them.

Care to elaborate on what paradoxical statements you believe I am making?

 

[Scott]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Which is it, dude??

Your repeated response to my questions 4 and 5 makes me think of a question where one is only allowed to response with either a "yes" or a "no". Some questions really can be answered in this fashion, but others can't. A classic example is that of a man being asked if he had stopped beating his wife. If he says yes, it suggests he had done so in the past and if he says no, it suggests that he's still beating her. Clearly, if the man had -never- beat his wife, then the correct answer has to be something like "I never beat her", not this yes/no dichotomy.

Word games won't help you.

No word games, just pointing out that some questions can't adequately be answered with a yes or no.

 

[Scott]

I still think this is the best video to get people back to reality with all this talk of "illegal aliens":

That won't work, Scott.

I disagree, I think that video clip is the best response to all this "illegal alien" banter I've ever seen.

Irrelevance fallacy.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

Illegal aliens have broken the law and are immediately subject to deportation.

Or blown to smithereens by a ray gun . For those who may not understand why I just said that, please see the video in the nested quotes above. What to do with human beings who have migrated to the U.S. illegally is a much more complicated problem.