President Trump 2.0

[Anonymouse]

Now he wants Republicans to "nationalise" elections.

In other words, steal them.

"I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the President of the United States."

Uh, no. That is in fact exactly what the Constitution is all about: to prevent the President from gaining total power. While it has its faults, the Constitution is the most sensible government document written in centuries. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

What he really wants is to rig the midterms. But it is, quite simply, contrary to the Constitution for the Federal government to take over elections, no matter the pretext. So is his serving a 3rd term, which despite what he's claimed is obviously his goal.

Assassination is looking more and more America's only hope. Again, Heinlein saw this coming - Trump is, or is trying to be, the 2026 version of Nehemiah Scudder.

(And up yours, Echelon! I can say these things because this is the United Kingdom, not Russia, China or Russia mark 2 a.k.a. the USA!

I NOTE IN PASSING THAT I DO NOT INTEND TO DISAPPEAR FROM PUBLIC VIEW AT ANY TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO IF I DO, WE'LL ALL KNOW WHY, WON'T WE?)

[jem]

"The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.”

But did they? The US Founding Fathers were all white, middle class and, mostly, slave owners - and wanted to ensure that their successors would be the same. Hence the oddball ‘electoral college’ system - the membership of which was vague.

How about a general plebiscite? Everyone votes for whoever they wanted as President? Everyone’s vote is equal? But no, they actually didn't trust the people would vote the 'right way’ and came up with a setup to persevere the status quo.

Over the last two centuries the system has evolved to be ‘better’, more representative, but there are still issues. Al Gore won more votes that George Bush in 2000, but Bush, because of the way the system works, became President. And that’s fine, all legal and correct. But was it ‘right’?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by thenry

He had a gun on him that day and nothing happened

Carrying it gangsta style. Were any of the officers aware at the time? If they had, at the very least, they would've pointed their guns at him, as would any armed US law enforcement.
The gun is only revealed after his jacket has come off, after getting away from them, so we can't be sure.
Still shows his violent, aggressive, and totally deranged nature.

---------- Post added at 21:36 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

Now he wants Republicans to "nationalise" elections.

In other words, steal them.

"I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the President of the United States."

Uh, no. That is in fact exactly what the Constitution is all about: to prevent the President from gaining total power. While it has its faults, the Constitution is the most sensible government document written in centuries. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

What he really wants is to rig the midterms. But it is, quite simply, contrary to the Constitution for the Federal government to take over elections, no matter the pretext. So is his serving a 3rd term, which despite what he's claimed is obviously his goal.

Assassination is looking more and more America's only hope. Again, Heinlein saw this coming - Trump is, or is trying to be, the 2026 version of Nehemiah Scudder.

(And up yours, Echelon! I can say these things because this is the United Kingdom, not Russia, China or Russia mark 2 a.k.a. the USA!

I NOTE IN PASSING THAT I DO NOT INTEND TO DISAPPEAR FROM PUBLIC VIEW AT ANY TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO IF I DO, WE'LL ALL KNOW WHY, WON'T WE?)

The Democrats are quick to routinely complain about individual US State control of elections.
So Gore, Hillary, and Kamala didn't complain about the voting?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Carrying it gangsta style. Were any of the officers aware at the time? If they had, at the very least, they would've pointed their guns at him, as would any armed US law enforcement.
The gun is only revealed after his jacket has come off, after getting away from them, so we can't be sure.
Still shows his violent, aggressive, and totally deranged nature.
[

Take it you are referring to the ICE agent here?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Take it you are referring to the ICE agent here?

Really? So Pretti wasn't all those things and more?
Did ICE actually behave any different than any other law enforcement officers would've? Even in the UK, police would've confronted somebody acting like that.

[jem]

“Carrying it gangsta style.”

Sorry but that the actual f**k does that mean?

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Really? So Pretti wasn't all those things and more?
Did ICE actually behave any different than any other law enforcement officers would've? Even in the UK, police would've confronted somebody acting like that.

Oh for God’s sake. He was on the ground, his (legally owned and had a right to carry) had been taken from him, his ability to harm anyone was zero. But yet he was shot many times, in the back.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jem

“Carrying it gangsta style.”

Sorry but that the actual f**k does that mean?

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------



Oh for God’s sake. He was on the ground, his (legally owned and had a right to carry) had been taken from him, his ability to harm anyone was zero. But yet he was shot many times, in the back.

Wasn't completely on the ground. He was half-kneeling when shot. He was still struggling and moving around. Hadn't been taken from him at the time. The video shows the agent going for his gun at the around SAME time as another agent reached. Trained automatic response would've kicked in. It was a "less lethal scenario"(still involving shooting the person), NOT a "non-lethal" one, where the person has completely surrendered.
Gangsta style is where they put it in their waistband, hidden but ready to use. Known as "Mexican Carry".

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wasn't completely on the ground. He was half-kneeling when shot. He was still struggling and moving around. Hadn't been taken from him at the time. The video shows the agent going for his gun at the around SAME time as another agent reached. Trained automatic response would've kicked in. It was a "less lethal scenario"(still involving shooting the person), NOT a "non-lethal" one, where the person has completely surrendered.
Gangsta style is where they put it in their waistband, hidden but ready to use. Known as "Mexican Carry".

He wasn't 'ready to use it' though. Also the agent took the gun away before the first shot was fired and then a further 9 shots. There was no danger of harm from Pretti at all.

He was legally carrying it as per the local rules. Pretty did nothing wrong. His only action was to try and help that woman up and instead was pepper spray, pinned to the ground and hit in the head with the pepper spray cannister, before being executed. How you can try to defend ICEs actions is beyond me.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Did ICE actually behave any different than any other law enforcement officers would've? Even in the UK, police would've confronted somebody acting like that.

Do UK immigration enforcement shoot and kill UK citizens? I don't think so!

Originally Posted by jem

Oh for God’s sake. He was on the ground, his (legally owned and had a right to carry) had been taken from him, his ability to harm anyone was zero. But yet he was shot many times, in the back.

Dont waste your time, the member in question has demonstrated a number of times that hes all in favour of US officers shooting their countrymen dead, and will argue blindly with anyone who disagrees it was fully justified, whatever the actual evidence.

---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do UK immigration enforcement shoot and kill UK citizens? I don't think so!

They are not routinely armed (but they can be).