Trump promotes "Stop and Frisk" and wants my vote?
Yes, one of my background links is Salon, is the content not correct? So, don't have a cow...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/tru … rcna157084
https://www.salon.com/2024/10/19/not-de … -his-word/
This form of policing had been declared unconstitutional over 10 years ago. But, Trump and his lemming like followers cant wait to strap on their jack boots, it's coming. The idea that has adversely affected minority communities in a sense that 89 percent of those accosted this way by police were not guilty of anything. These Gestapo style tactics give police a Carte-Blanche to terrorize minority communities where the bulk of abuses have occurred. Imagine a man that cannot even spell Constitution allowed to even utter such inane thoughts? So, what will Trump attack next, Miranda?
What about the concepts of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, are they to be just discarded? Trump want to pressure police departments to employ this tactic in cities or face loss of federal funds. I have nothing against cops, but they have proper rules of engagement and I expect them to follow them.
This Trumpian policy will be resisted by me and and others like me, and there will be no peace under the circumstances as I prepare for my arrest based on my resistance to an upcoming Trump regime.
You will all elect him because as I have said, I KNOW YOuBetter by far that we simply defund all police to the point that the single one left never leaves the precinct office. That way there will be no police killings, no police violence and no police discrimination. We can all bow at the BLM altar as we leave behind the police state where criminals are taken from our society to the state of anarchy where criminals share our home with us whether we like it or not.
And yes, it's sarcasm, in direct response to the foolish exaggerations posted here.Better to defund police than to accommodate a police state. The fact that you won't accept Trumps words and threats and take them seriously is at the height of foolishness from my point of view.
The comments you make are always easy to say, after all Trump is not going disturb YOUR world... yeah, I know you....You will have a police state... one run by Federal and International agencies.
But you know that... you have to by now, if you still support this Party.
Or maybe I should say Military state... whatever it is where you live in fear of your neighbor reporting on you, or your child, or your co-worker.
The FBI becomes our KGB... what you type online gets you arrested... fun stuff.Ken, all that you speak of is merely speculative. The introduction of “stop and frisk: has been found unconstitutional and its use and its abuse is here and quite real. I regard that as a real life step toward the police state. That is enough to oppose Trump and MAGA right there.
Yeah, I know bud, you want to remain blind to the real threat...
Its happened in other countries in the past... your side is acting a lot more like the early days of the revolution in Russia, or even Germany, than you are willing to see.
Biden On Trump: ‘We Gotta Lock Him Up’
President Joe Biden said at a campaign event on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump had to be locked up because of the threat that he presents to the country.
Biden made the remarks during an event in Concord, New Hampshire, for Democratic candidates Joyce Craig and Maggie Goodlander.
Donald Trump Jr. quickly responded to the clip, posting on X: “They’re not even hiding it. The lawfare against my dad was always about election interference!”
I think Harris is doing just fine coming across as someone who will be willing to lock up all political opponents and restrict speech so much that anyone speaking out against her government will face jail time.
Its coming... some of us can see just where this lunacy is going to lead us."Biden On Trump: ‘We Gotta Lock Him Up’"
Misinformation as usual. How about the rest of the quote?
"We’ve got to lock him up,” Biden said Tuesday. “Politically lock him up. Lock him out. That’s what we have to do.”
Meanwhile, your guy....
"We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics... And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or really necessary by the military, because they can't let that happen," he said.Your quote from Biden is out of context and itself mis-information.
It was clear what he said, he wanted Trump locked up.
Then he went back moments later, after realizing what he said, and stated your quote.No Ken. People were clapping, he paused during the clapping and finished the thought. Certainly not "moments later ".
https://x.com/Rifleman4WVU/status/18490 … fleman4WVUYup, exactly what I said... moments... seconds...
You say tomato... I say tom'ahto ... lets call the whole thing off.His sentence was interrupted by clapping. Most speakers wait until the clapping subsides to continue... So as to be heard.
There were no more than 25 people in that room. One could have heard a pin drop when her said this NO HOW ABOUT THE entire quote full context --- "This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually ELIMINATE — physically eliminate — SHOOT, KILL— someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him.
I guess you did not hear that statement. How sickening that this man represents my Country.
Ken this man is deranged one only needs to listen to his full presentation.
NO HOW ABOUT THE entire quote full context --- "This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually ELIMINATE — physically eliminate — SHOOT, KILL— someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him.
I mean — so, I know this sounds bizarre. It sounds like — if I said this five years ago, you’d lock me up. (Laughter.) We got to lock him up — (applause) — politically lock him up. Lock him out, that’s what we have to do."
Biden needs to be impeached, he is not fit to be in office. Can you even believe this nut would make such an action? That Trump would kill people...Yes I know he is deranged, along with that entire Administration.
He wanted to start WWIII... he wanted to launch long range missiles INTO Russia and attack their infrastructure.
There is nothing more insane or deranged than that."He wanted to start WWIII... he wanted to launch long range missiles INTO Russia and attack their infrastructure."
Do you have a source for that? And I mean one that is credible.Biden seems to be in much worse condition. What a scary situation. Did you ever think you would see that day we would have a man in the White House in this shape? He is dangerous. I would think someone else is making all the decisions.
NO HOW ABOUT THE entire quote full context --- "This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually ELIMINATE — physically eliminate — SHOOT, KILL— someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him.
I mean — so, I know this sounds bizarre. It sounds like — if I said this five years ago, you’d lock me up. (Laughter.) We got to lock him up — (applause) — politically lock him up. Lock him out, that’s what we have to do." Joe Biden Source https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … oncord-nh/
This nut job actually said this to a group of people--- I am sure they thought him to be as nuts as I do. This man should be taken out of office immediately. He is badly confused. I hope Trump will bring a lawsuit against him for such a slanderous statement. HEY! Full context matters.
Watch video - https://www.fox4news.com/news/biden-tru … -hampshire
Yes, we have some really sick people a president that could be called a lunatic, in my view...
In a recent interview on Fox News, Trump expressed concern about potential unrest on Election Day, suggesting that the National Guard or military may need to intervene against what he described as “radical left lunatics” and the "enemy from within." He emphasized that he believes the threat comes more from domestic sources rather than foreign adversaries like China or Russia.
Trump's comments were made in response to a question about the possibility of chaos during the elections. He stated, "We have some very bad people, we have some sick people," and asserted that these issues should be manageable with military or National Guard support if necessary. Context matters
In my view, he needs to think about what could happen on election day. We have many leftists that could very well become violent. And I would be onboard if violence occurs the Guard be sent in to stop it. As it was on Yes, the National Guard was deployed in response to the events of January 6, 2021. We need to have equal justice if left-wing activists riot.I found absolutely nothing wrong with Biden's comments. The statement about Trump ordering someone to be killed was part of his legal teams argument to the Supreme court. Remember the seal team six argument? Yes, his attorney argued that if it were considered an act of his presidential duties it would be okay. Biden is not wrong on this. As long as he labels it and official act, the Supreme Court has said it is a-ok
"Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity "
I don't think Trump should be making any statements about election day security because he's not in office.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … -immunity/The Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity, central to Joe Biden's comments, clarified the legal protections for both current and former presidents. The decision, delivered in Trump v. United States (2024), stated that presidents are immune from prosecution for actions deemed "official acts" within their constitutional powers, such as commanding the military or executing laws. However, they do not have immunity for "unofficial acts" or actions outside their official responsibilities.
Biden's assertion that Trump could "shoot" or "kill" someone and claim immunity is an exaggeration, of the implications of the ruling. The Court did not grant presidents immunity for violent or criminal behavior, such as physically harming others. The ruling only protects presidents from prosecution for acts carried out in their constitutional capacity, like executing laws or pardoning individuals. The suggestion that Trump—or any president—could legally kill someone with impunity misinterprets the scope of this immunity.
source https://www.wusf.org/courts-law/2024-07 … -elections
In short, the ruling shields presidents from criminal charges for legitimate presidential actions, but not for personal or illegal activities.I think you may find it helpful to read the section in which Trump's legal team is questioned about the use of seal team 6.
It sounds like you're referring to the discussion about a seal team--- Yes, Trump's legal team brought up a hypothetical scenario involving SEAL Team 6 during the Supreme Court case regarding presidential immunity. In a hearing, attorney John Sauer was asked whether a president could order a SEAL team to assassinate a political opponent and avoid prosecution. Sauer suggested that such a president could only be prosecuted if impeached and convicted first. This assertion raised significant concerns among judges, who described it as "frightening," emphasizing the implications of a president being above the law for serious crimes, including ordering an assassination.
Sauer's argument is part of a broader defense strategy claiming that actions taken by a president in office should be protected under the doctrine of presidential immunity, essentially arguing that the Constitution allows for no criminal accountability unless impeachment occurs. This interpretation was met with skepticism from the court, as it could theoretically enable future presidents to evade legal consequences for serious offenses
This discussion was not part of the justice's decision. Which I have already shared. When opinions are issued by the Supreme Court, the key points often come down to the court's reasoning and conclusions rather than the details or discussions that were presented during the proceedings. The decision did not touch on the seal team discussion in any respect.
Biden clearly should not have made such a claim "This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually ELIMINATE — physically eliminate — SHOOT, KILL— someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him."
I find your defending such a bazaar statement very odd.
In short, the ruling shields presidents from criminal charges for legitimate presidential actions, but not for personal or illegal activities.In her dissent to the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor painted a grim portrait of a commander-in-chief now “immune, immune, immune” from criminal liability and free to exploit official presidential power against political opponents.
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?” she wrote. “Immune.”
Constitutional law experts say she’s right: The court’s decision in Trump v. United States really does appear to immunize a hypothetical president who directed the military to commit murder, though a president might be hard-pressed to find someone to carry out such an order.
The crux of the issue, legal scholars said, is that the decision granted total immunity for any actions a president takes using the “core powers” that the Constitution bestows on the office. One such power is the authority to command the military.
“The language of the Supreme Court’s decision seems to suggest that because this is a core function of the president, that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” said Cheryl Bader, a criminal law professor at Fordham Law School and a former federal prosecutor. “If Trump, as commander in chief, ordered his troops to assassinate somebody or stage a coup, that would seem to fall within the absolute immunity provision of the court’s decision.”
Biden certainly has support for his statement.
God forbid Trump wins this election. A fascist government with this kind of power is scaryIn Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion, he argued that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions carried out as part of their core constitutional responsibilities, such as commanding the military or issuing pardons. He explained that while presidents have immunity for official acts, they do not have immunity for private actions. Roberts emphasized that this immunity is critical to maintaining the separation of powers but does not extend to actions outside the president’s constitutional authority. --- John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch.
In her dissenting opinion on Trump's immunity case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced a strong warning about the broad immunity the ruling granted to the president. She raised a hypothetical scenario in which a president could order Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and still be immune from criminal prosecution under the majority's ruling. Sotomayor argued that this interpretation of presidential immunity dangerously elevates the president above the law, turning the office into something akin to kingship.
As you can see the decision when written, Justice Robert's took Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion into good consideration, well making a distinction between official and unofficial
However, Roberts made a distinction: while immunity applies to official acts, it does not cover personal or unofficial actions. The case against Trump could therefore proceed regarding any actions deemed unofficial. The decision aimed to maintain a balance between allowing the president to fulfill the role’s obligations while not extending immunity to acts outside those official duties.
I have no concerns about Chief Justice Roberts' decision. Most presidents would welcome the level of immunity it provides, which helps safeguard their decision-making processes in office. It's important to note that from now on, all future presidents will benefit from this protection. It seems you may not fully grasp the ruling—it grants immunity only for official acts carried out as part of a president’s constitutional duties, not for private or unofficial actions. This distinction ensures accountability while protecting the executive branch’s ability to function effectively. You are making
something from nothing.
I don’t believe Trump has shared any information that would make me feel he poses a danger as president. I recognize that the media often takes statements out of context, and I've learned to investigate such accusations carefully. Most of the time—about 90% of the time—I find that media reports are skewed. This kind of reporting can create misconceptions about Trump and what he represents. It seems clear to me that the media is working to distract certain segments of society, which is dangerous. Relying on the media for truth is not a wise choice, especially given the serious problems our nation faces. In my view, it’s unwise to follow the narrative that the media seeks to promote.
I am extremely satisfied with Trump's agenda, as it directly addresses our current challenges. It’s clear to me that he possesses the strength, determination, and love for this country that I seek in a president. In my lifetime, I have never witnessed someone with such tenacity. I see no need to compare the two candidates; in my opinion, there simply is no comparison. I am so hopeful that he will win, I feel from day one he will do his job."Roberts made a distinction: while immunity applies to official acts, it does not cover personal or unofficial actions."
And Trump wouldn't order the elimination of rivals as an official act? He's on record talking retribution quite a bit. You know, the standard fascist rhetoric.. rooting out the enemies within, the vermin, those who poison the blood of America? Trump tells us exactly what's on his mind. No need for reinterpretation.He learns, doesn't he? Orders have come down for years now to eliminate Trump from politics (and society in general) now; do you expect him to pretend it isn't happening? To forget it? Do you expect him not to play the game?
I don't think "orders" have come down from anyone or anywhere concerning Trump . But at least you acknowledge what Trump has never denied... He is going to go after his perceived enemies.
Why would he not? It would seem he would at best use pink slips to rid Washington of those that he deemed as true enemies of the Constitution, and enemies of democracy. I hope to hell he does. I think any president should drive out enemies that are a threat to either.
But you all whine that "Biden is persecuting" Trump. So, if that is true, you're supposed to be ok with that. After all, the left sees him as one of the true enemies of the Constitution and Democracy.
So we all should say we hope to hell he's been doing it, and continues to do so, right? And if Harris is elected, we should hope she finishes the job, right? Not only with Trump, but with all his circle. Right? What about with MAGA?
Let us hope to hell she does.
I think I'm beginning to like your idea.
Rest assured that will occur.
In addition, the wars in all three contested regions will escalate.
Just remember back to these times, when you thought it was absurd talk.
I think with a Harris win, we will enter into our Atlas Shrugged reality...
By that I mean, how she depicts a dystopian United States in which publicly traded companies suffer under increasingly burdensome laws and regulations.... the best and brightest minds (IE - Elon Musk) will be forced to flee and take their efforts elsewhere (China, Russia, ???) where they won't be treated like "domestic threats/terrorists".
Fun Fact - Atlas Shrugged is divided into three parts consisting of ten chapters each.
Each part is named in honor of one of Aristotle's laws of logic: "Non-Contradiction" after the law of noncontradiction; "Either-Or", which is a reference to the law of excluded middle; and "A Is A" in reference to the law of identity.I have indeed criticized what I perceive as Biden's corrupt actions, and I applaud Trump for his determination to go after those who have carried out Biden's persecution. I respect his strength in standing up against what he sees as unfair treatment.
I don't see a correlation between Biden's use of federal agencies to target his political opponent and Trump's desire to eliminate corrupt actors from the government. While Biden seems to be leveraging the judicial system against Trump, Trump's focus appears to be on cleaning house and removing individuals he believes are corrupt or part of a broader agenda against him. These are two distinct approaches: one is based on perceived legal persecution, while the other is aimed at promoting accountability and reform within the government.
"And Trump wouldn't order the elimination of rivals as an official act? He's on record talking retribution quite a bit. " This makes no sense at all.
The president of the United States has several official powers and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution and reinforced by federal law. Last I looked murder or killing anyone would fit our laws. My God, where do you get this stuff?
You reflect on Trump's words, many of which I acknowledge he has said. It should be obvious that I view his statements differently. I’m not someone who reacts impulsively; instead, I take things in stride and rely on my life experiences to inform my judgments. Logic is my priority. You've mentioned that Trump will harm those he dislikes—can you hear how unfounded that fear is? Such extreme concerns seem unwarranted, and it’s important to approach discussions with a more rational perspective. You move from one odd thought to another. You give up on the Immunity ruling, and now on to "well he will just doit anyway...""Last I looked murder or killing anyone would fit our laws. My God, where do you get this stuff?"
Does your statement apply to a sitting president who, the Supreme Court has bestowed immunity for official acts? Can eliminating an individual be considered an official act?You forgot the full context "The president of the United States has several official powers and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution and reinforced by federal law. Last I looked murder or killing anyone would fit our laws. My God, where do you get this stuff".
I am sure our Constitution does not promote murder nor do our Federal laws. But you believe what you feel makes you comfortable.
I find your mindset odd at best. Nothing more to say on the subject. I refer you to Rachael Maddow. LOLAgain, the Supreme Court decision carved out immunity for the president in terms of official acts. Have sitting presidents ever called for murder?
I am stepping away at this point because I am tired of my " mindset" being called odd.
I do not acknowledge the truth in anything that you posted here, Ken.
I'd be upset with such a lame one liner retort...
But after rereading what I wrote there... uughghh... not my best...
Sooo... ehm... thanks... ???
Oh dear God, that is the problem. Because of the defunding of the police by leftist radicals, crime has escalated. The police is needed. We need law & order. When there was stop & frisk, cities were SO MUCH safer.
They need to create the chaos and unrest, the rampant crime...
So that they can then unleash the government forces on the people...
Steal their guns, eliminate their political opponents...
They have done a masterful job over the last 9 years of making Americans fear Donald Trump, to villainize him, characterize him as every evil known to man...
On some weak minded Americans it has worked, in spades... typically the more educated a person is, the more willing they are to conform to the manipulation, more willing to accept the ideology, the alternative is to be cast out and lose one's friends, one's job.
This is a test of the American people themselves, are they sheep ready to conform to the tyranny and control that is imminent to befall us... or will they stand up and say no... reject the propaganda and lies... and vote for Trump, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard and all the rest that stand with Trump.So, you tell me that it is ok for police to pull people at random and search without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or a warrant? Is that not the foundation for fascism and the police state? NO WAY, totally unacceptable.
Harris was a prosecutor in San Francisco from 2004 to 2011. During that time, she supported policies that included aggressive policing tactics, such as "stop and frisk." While the practice itself is more closely associated with New York City, her approach to law enforcement during her tenure as district attorney involved tough-on-crime measures that aligned with those principles.
After her time in San Francisco, she faced criticism for these policies, especially during her 2020 presidential campaign, where she began to acknowledge the negative consequences of such approaches and called for reforms in policing.
Yet today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylvW1mp8frY"... where she began to acknowledge the negative consequences of such approaches and called for reforms in policing."
Back on Track:
23:13 ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIy2rDVecIIt appears Harris is now offering a completely different view of stop and frisk. In my view, this shows a lack of conviction because it is a very opposite view from what she felt about stop and frisk while she was working in San Francisco. This issue gives a view into her values.
When properly implemented with good training and ongoing monitoring, stop and frisk can serve as a proactive policing strategy aimed at enhancing public safety. It allows law enforcement officers to engage with individuals in high-crime areas, potentially deterring criminal activity through increased visibility and presence. This tactic can lead to the discovery of illegal weapons or drugs, contributing to the prevention of violent crimes and enhancing community security. Additionally, when conducted with clear guidelines and accountability, stop and frisk can foster community-police relations by allowing officers to address suspicious behavior without immediate escalation. Effective training ensures that officers understand the legal and ethical boundaries of the practice, while ongoing monitoring helps maintain accountability and build trust within the community. This approach can also aid in gathering intelligence that helps police understand crime patterns, ultimately benefiting the overall safety and well-being of the community.
It could provide law-abiding citizens who live in high crime areas a feeling that not only something is being done, but a feeling they can more safely have access to their neighborhoods. Many Americans live in high-crime areas feeling helpless. We need solutions for law-abiding citizens.But, it also has the potential for great abuse as the reasons the courts ruled against its use. Without guardrails, I don't trust anybody. I would not want a policeman stopping and searching me without cause, would you?
My being black male in of itself is suspicious and justify an accosting by a police officer? As I said, 89 percent of these searches yielded nothing. I won't tolerate and have to be resistant against Trump in every way regarding this.
What legal and ethical balance? They can search whenever and whatever they want without justification or warrant. The community's answer cannot involve just that much more police harassment. I expect these people to do their jobs as prescribed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and not make exception for minority communities. Proper police work is well possible to address crime in minority communities just as it is for your community.Thank you Sharlee. We certainly need solutions. It is the law-abiding citiizens who are suffering en masse because of the defunding of the police.
Related Discussions
- 192
NY "Stop and Frisk" on hold- Rightwinger gets another black eye
by Credence2 11 years ago
Here is the gist of it in a statement provided by the judge:"Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example,” she wrote, “but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.”So much for the idea...
- 128
Is Barack Obama one of the worst presidents ever? I say he is.
by feenix 10 years ago
Obama is a fool. The man has absolutely no leadership ability, he is in way over his head, ISIS is cleaning his clock, Putin is treating him like a bitch, the Iranians are ripping him off, he didn't even have the common sense to come down hard on the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore, he allowed...
- 61
Trump Ignoring the Facts in His ‘Meet the Press’ Interview
by Willowarbor 7 months ago
In an interview that aired on Sunday’s Meet the Press, Trump gave his usual bluster and ignored some important facts...13,099 Murderers...Trump claimed that the U.S. had “13,099 murderers released into our country over the last three years” who were undocumented immigrants. That claim is...
- 10
S 3081 and the American Police State
by sannyasinman 15 years ago
What kind of America do you want to live in? Do you want it to remain the "Land of the Free", or do you want it to be a police state where people can be thrown in jail indefinitely without a trial, at the discretion of unelected bureaucrats? A bill recently introduced by Senator McCain...
- 58
Kentucky criminalizes insulting police: Open Door to a Police State?
by Credence2 4 years ago
Background:https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/03 … olice-billMost troubling....This has got to be a harbinger toward a trend that will probably sell like hot cakes in red states.1. The definition for "insult" is very subjective and could be interpreted as a protester just...
- 18
Is the United States a Police State ?
by PeterStip 9 years ago
Is the United States a Police State ?Almost every week you can read something in the news about violent behaviour of policeman. If you would ask a black person if they trusted the police, the answer would be in most cases No. Which isn't strange if you know that 40% of the inmates is black...