Trump The AUTHORITARIAN

1. 80

   Credence2posted 11 hours ago

   Is it not the nature of the beast? The template for the 21st century version of despotism is here on display. And people wonder why I cannot stand Trump. As always, I ask, just who does he think that he is?
   
   
   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tional-law

   replyreport
   1. 85

      GA Andersonposted 10 hours agoin reply to this

      I can see why the 'teasers' in the Guardian article fired your jets. Did you do any follow-up to ensure the context didn't ruin the rant?
      
      Just for info: Here's the NYT's Pres. Trump Interview Highlights Reel. It does a good job of offering the context behind each highlighted point.
      
      I'm not sure which part triggered you first, but I bet you jumped up with an angry "Oh hell no!" when you saw this one:
      
        "Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”*
      
      *You better check the context before you go off on that one    ;-)
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 8 hours agoin reply to this

         GA, what context? The paragraph in italics, is that not what he said?
         
         Is it always the case that we need an interpreter with a Trumpeze-english dictionary to hold him accountable for what he actually says?
         
         why do conservatives always have to massage his comments to interpret them contrary to what he directly says?
         
         So, I read the Times piece, what was the subtle context that was behind that comment that I missed?

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 7 hours agoin reply to this

            I didn't say there was mitigating context; I simply wondered if you looked deeper than the headlines. I'll forewarn you if you need to gird up for an argument. This was just for discussion.
            
            When I read the part that included the quote, my thought was that, excepting our Constitutional limits, he's right. He might break the norms, but what's to stop him if he doesn't break laws?
            
            To preempt an 'international law' argument, I bet it's fair to say that we both know the major nations only listen to the UN and ICC when it benefits them.
            
            If Trump's actions are not deemed unconstitutional — in the realm of foreign affairs — who (other than our Congress) can stop him?
            
            GA

            replyreport
2. 84

   Sharlee01posted 6 hours ago

   Authorities report that earlier on the same day, Good had been following and confronting federal officers. In addition to her activism, Good was involved with “ICE Watch,” a Minneapolis-based group that monitors and opposes federal immigration enforcement, according to Homeland Security sources. The group reportedly operates in multiple sanctuary cities across the country.
   
   There was a new video released today, being run on Fox. It shows Ms. Goods ' partner outside the car verbally berating ICE.  The video is easy to find if one has an interest.
   
   "Kristi Noem and Department of Homeland Security officials, federal authorities have publicly claimed that Renee Nicole Good had been following, “stalking,” blocking and interfering with ICE agents throughout the day before she was shot, and that she had impeded their work prior to the fatal encounter."
   Source   https://chatgpt.com/c/69615f07-b0a8-832 … c461d1e4e7

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Readmikenowposted 5 hours agoin reply to this

      Shar,
      
      I saw a video that showed the ICE officer's perspective.  I can honestly say I would have done the exact thing.  She was coming at him with her vehicle and he did what he had to do to defend himself.
      
      The democrat leadership is trying to make this a big deal to deter from the billions of dollars in fraud they are guilty for letting happen.
      
      The democrats in Minneapolis have gotten an immigrant community, made them dependent on government money so they keep voting democrat.  It makes sense the democrats would have to use immigrants who struggle with the American culture and language.  Then they teach them how to commit fraud.  The democrats keep the cycle of immigrants entering the country, voting for them and keeping them on government benefits.
      
      democrats know nobody wants their ideas so they have to stoop this low to maintain their political power.  Cheating and scamming for political success is catching up with the democrats.  It's a shame but interesting to watch them implode.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         peoplepower73posted 3 hours agoin reply to this

         This is from substack.  The only thing missing is immediately with out any evidence to support it, Trump always blames the radical left.
         
         First came the gunshot. Then came the press release. In Trump’s America, the order is sacred: violence first, narrative immediately after. Before the blood has cooled on the pavement, the administration reaches for its most reliable tool: not evidence, not restraint, not even curiosity, but the smear. A woman is dead, and within minutes she has been promoted—posthumously—to “domestic terrorist,” a title now so broadly applied it seems to mean “anyone unfortunate enough to be killed by federal agents.”
         
         This is not a bug in the system; it is the system. The Trump administration has refined the art of character assassination into a muscle memory. No investigation, no waiting for facts, no acknowledgment that armed agents of the state might possibly have erred. Instead, there is the ritual incantation: “self-defense,” “riot,” “terrorism.” Say it fast enough, loudly enough, and with enough confidence, and perhaps the public won’t notice the inconvenient videos, eyewitnesses, or basic laws of physics contradicting the official story...
         
         Please tell me what you see in this video with your own eyes.
         
         https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000 … =url-share

         replyreport
         1. 89

            My Esotericposted 106 minutes agoin reply to this

            I think it is broader than that. If they simply don't like you, you are a domestic terrorist. There is no meaning left to the phrase anymore.

            replyreport
         2. 89

            My Esotericposted 72 minutes agoin reply to this

            They can't, otherwise they contradict their leader.
            
            With the help of synchronization, it is clear the agent was what, a foot away from the car and she was pulling away from him. This falls somewhere between Grossly Negligent Homicide and Murder - in either case, a crime of huge proportions.

            replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 3 hours agoin reply to this

         This is a new video that has been released. It shows the ICE officer hit, and he rolled up and then shot her.
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNbHlmZVmAw

         replyreport
         1. 88

            peoplepower73posted 2 hours agoin reply to this

            Your video does not clearly show that she hit the agent with her car. My video shows the agent stepping around in front of the car and shooting her through the windshield.  You can clearly see the smoke from the muzzle of the gun.  If she was trying to hit him why would there be a bullet hole in the windshield?  There was no bullet hole when she was driving down the street.
            
            Now they are not allowing an independent investigation. They only want the FBI to investigate so that Kash Patel can cover up what actually happened. Why did he have to shoot her in the head at point blank range?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               My Esotericposted 114 minutes agoin reply to this

               Oh, there are a hundred more questions.
               
               Why did he violate his training and walk in front of the vehicle?
               
               Why was he holding a gun and cell phone at the same time, I doubt that is in the training manual either.
               
               Why didn't he follow his training and step away from the vehicle if it was moving?
               
               Why did he shoot several times with innocent by-standers close by?
               
               Why didn't he follow his training an De-escalate and avoid creating the hazard?
               
               Why did he ignore she was clearly trying to turn the car away from him?
               
               If it was SO dangerous, why didn't ANY other agent draw their weapon?
               
               So many questions.
               
               And with so many VIOLATIONS of procedure by the shooter, this should be a grossly negligent homicide case.

               replyreport
            2. 84

               Sharlee01posted 74 minutes agoin reply to this

               Here is a much better video. That was just released today,
               Clearly shows the officer being hit. I stopped the footage to make sure the car hit him, and his feet were off the ground. He was hit on the driver's side.  It is very clear footage.
               
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrUMVtrCK_Y

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  My Esotericposted 55 minutes agoin reply to this

                  Can't see it for sure myself, close, but no cigar. I did see an agent being where he isn't supposed to be - in front of the car. 
                  
                  However, another video, when synced with this one, clearly shows the agent who was in violation of standard protocol. not being hit. PeoplePower provided that video.

                  replyreport
         2. 89

            My Esotericposted 2 hours agoin reply to this

            What do you mean "rolled up"?

            replyreport
      3. 89

         My Esotericposted 110 minutes agoin reply to this

         So you are admitting that you would have violated numerous training rules that ended up causing this innocent woman her life.
         
         See my list of questions below.

         replyreport
      4. 89

         My Esotericposted 98 minutes agoin reply to this

         In response to the rest of your BS.
         
         This is a lot of allegation, almost no evidence. A few grounding points:
         
         “Immigrants voting Democrat to keep benefits.”
         Non-citizens can’t vote. Period. Green-card holders and refugees don’t vote in federal or Minnesota state elections. If you’re claiming illegal voting, instead of making things up - name cases and convictions.
         
         “Democrats teach immigrants to commit fraud.”
         That’s defamatory unless you can show who, when, and how. When fraud exists, it gets prosecuted (often by nonpartisan inspectors general and U.S. attorneys). Show the indictments or retract.
         
         “Billions in fraud” as a smokescreen.
         If you have audited numbers, cite them. Otherwise it’s a talking point, not an argument. Fraud is investigated by career auditors—under both parties—and those reports are public.
         
         Dependency narrative.
         Most immigrants work, pay taxes, and many naturalize and vote how they choose. Reducing a whole community to a political pawn dehumanizes law-abiding neighbors who are doing exactly what we say we want: working, learning English, starting businesses, and becoming citizens.
         
         Elections and ideas.
         If “nobody wants their ideas,” you should be able to win on policy without conspiracy theories. Make your case on budgets, schools, safety, and growth—not on smearing entire communities.
         
         Bottom line: Bring evidence—case numbers, court filings, audited losses—or drop the blanket accusations. We can debate policy on immigration, welfare design, and election rules. But mass claims of teaching immigrants to cheat (without proof) are just scapegoating, and they poison any serious conversation.

         replyreport