WSJ: Hegseth orders National Guard to focus on Internal Suppression missions

there is a difference between lawful and right......Paladin will NEVER get that NEVER

Al if the person who pisses in your cornflakes every morning ever quits i will volunteer

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and laws to decide their extent and validity.

Some action can be de facto legal if it is not prosecuted or enjoined, but can an action be said to de facto illegal if it is not prosecuted or enjoined?

There are often differences of opinion about whether some government conduct falls within the extent of rightful government power. These questions are resolved by courts (and ultimately by the Supreme Court).

Where the government acts and the courts do not intervene, the conduct is de facto legal.

I don't feel the least bit tyrannized, and I don't see anyone else being tyrannized, so, there's no need to entertain thoughts of rebellion.

Paladin's whole point is that there is a difference.

Prove it, you lying asssbag.

My actual stated position.

http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3619222/

Only a shameless lying ratfuck would claim "I don't want the national guard in the streets" means I actually do.

You've also said that your position isn't a simple for/against, and the clear implication is present that while you don't want troops enforcing the law, crime levels are at least as big a problem, which may make it unfortunately necessary.

and that boils down to character Paladin ( i will apologize if i am wromg) believes that lawful is more important than right..........or..........that lawful excuses right

People can disagree about what is right or wrong. You get to determine that for yourself.

But where disputes about the law arise, there are actually authorities: the courts (with the Supreme Court having the final say).

If the courts permit a government action to happen, then that action is legal. Your personal sense of its rightness or wrongness doesn't change that.

Your recourse is to change the government, change the law, or find some grounds to appeal.

It's not a simple topic. I'm not ageeing to tolerate property crimes and assaults in exchange for sending the soldiers away. A third option is required.

so no matter what it is if is is legal it is AOK in your book. legality is what matters. thanks for the honest answer

Well, at least you're good at mischaracterizing what you can't read.

And that is exactly what I was trying to get you to acknowledge.
That Trump can be a dictator, even as the Supreme Court grants him permission to be so.
With that in mind, it is therefore irrelevant to point to Supreme Court decisions as evidence either for or against Trump being an authoritarian.

Okay.

Well, that was easy. Less than one minute of looking.

"He's acting within the restraints of the legal system! Dictator!!" That's what this argument sounds like to me.

The President is acting in a way you don't support. The Court is backing him (or, at a minimum, not stopping him). Where do you go from there?

(a) Vote, work for change, advocate for alternatives?

(b) Sit back, take it, and grumble?

(c) Grab a gun and take to the streets?

I think Paladin's a Fed.
Y'all, he keeps trying to get you to choose option C.

"How do you do fellow kids?" and such.

How did you know?

I'd argue he's not acting within the restraints of the legal system.
He's trying to argue, for instance, that he doesn't need congressional approval for those boat strikes.
He's trying to argue he has the power to levy taxes. And to deny funding appropriated by Congress.
He's trying to argue he has the authority to deploy federal military troops into American cities.
He's trying to argue he has the authority to demolish any part of the white house he wants without authorization.
To rename cabinet positions.
To rename geographic locations.
To deny people birthright citizenship.
And all of these have been both permitted by a Congress that is supposed to stop that activity, and by a Supreme Court that is also supposed to reign it in.

Now, I am voting. And I am working for change. As are many others. But as has been said, Trump is speedrunning the dictator playbook to get these things in place so that there will be no other alternative than to grab a gun and take to the streets.

But Paladin doesn't see any dictator-like behavior, so your point is invalid.

Pwned, leftoid!

Or, hear me out, none of this is as outrageous, unusual, or tyrannical as you think.

There is a system of checks and balances. If he's not being checked--and you just stated that's the case--then the prevailing attitude--dare I day, the democratically chosen attitude--is that there is no desire or basis to check him?

Please stop him before he renames another geographical feature or tears down an outbuilding on the White House grounds!

I kid. But to the extent any of those things are outside his power, they can be stopped. If they're within his power, well...

We're hearing scores of Trump voters saying "I didn't vote for this." His approval ratings are in the toilet. Tuesdays elections, from NY to Mississippi, were a repudiation of Trump's policies.
The people with no desire or basis to check him are those in the Republican party who are in fear of losing their position. None of them want to be the next Liz Cheney.
And since we don't vote on a president every other week, it's rather hard to properly gauge how much the people are endorsing his actions.
But it's a facetious point anyway. You and I both know this isn't what a majority of Trump voters were expecting. But what is their recourse now?

You kid, but it belies a serious issue. You don't start out sending the troops into Chicago. You begin by unilaterally renaming the Gulf of Mexico. You normalize the President doing what he wants regardless of existing procedure and regulation.

The German people CHOSE a Fuhrer!
The people he killed? Ope, sucks to be them! Omelets and eggs and all that!! Tra-la-la-la-laaa!

While Democrats had a good day, I wouldn't read too much into it. Mostly, they were wins were Democrats were favored to win. And NJ came perilously close to electing a Republican governor.

The poll that matters is the one on election day. My own experience, admittedly anecdotal, is that Trump voters are still pretty happy with Trump.

The real transgression is always down the road.

That's what the losing party always says. "Don't read too much into it."

As for your anecdotal evidence, it means nothing.
If you listen to YouTube critics like Critical Drinker, you'd have a very different idea, for instance, of which movies this year have been successful (See: Volpone, FF)

Fair. But I'd be more concerned that guys like Mamdani are becoming the face of the Democratic Party

And polls can be manipulated. Like I said the poll on election day is the one that matters.

If there were some way possible for me to care less about that, I would.

Hahaha!! Nope!

I'm not sure he is. But even if he was, why is that concerning to you?

They can be, yes. But it's not hard for me to believe, for instance, that Midwest farmers are pissed at Trump. It makes sense.

[/quote

I don't really care either. It's just an example of anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias.

Well Bill Maher says....

This thread is making it really fucking clear that had Jan 6th 2021 played out like Trump wanted it to Paladin would have been shrugging and saying it was clearly fine since if it wasn't it wouldn't have happened.