Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Trump has signaled that he is now will to declare marshal law in America. Several month ago, the South Korean president did that was in Dec 2024 when it seemed the "congress" was going to impeach him. So, don't think it can't be done in a modern democracy.
Title X gives the president authority to call activate the National Guard of any or all states in times of emergency. It presumes the elected president is rational.
-The last time the guard was called up in any state without or against the governor's wishes was in Arkansas by LBJ to enforce a Supreme Court ruling for a racist State to integrate its schools.
- The last time the guard was called up with the governor's consent and request was in the Rodney King riots of 1992 (I remember sitting in Dodger stadium in Chavez Ravine watching the fires below).
Trump, the felon, has crossed another Rubicon in his march to a Putin-style government in America by activating the California National Guard (and putting Marines from Camp Pendleton on deployment orders), without Governor Newsom's knowledge or approval. His pretext was a couple of hundred almost entirely peaceful protestors in the city of Paramount, near LA. By comparison, the Rodney King riot was a real riot that had gone on for quite awhile. This move by Trump is nothing more than a manufactured crisis to show how tough he is and thrill his base - it was NOT the action of a real president who takes his job seriously.
Combined with putting the Marines on notice to go to LA clearly shows to me that Trump will have no problem calling martial law across America for any imagined reason. One could be when the Democrats rightfully impeach him for the third time when they gain power in 2026. This action by Trump will probably be one of the Articles of Impeachment.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/08/us/natio … os-angelesA morning chuckle
Picture this:
I'm having morning coffee and watching CNN and BBC recap last night's LA news. Half an hour, or so, of; Waymo and police cars burning; protesters on an overpass throwing rocks and explosive fireworks at police and their vehicles; protesters on the side of roads throwing chunks of concrete and rocks at Federal ICE vehicles as they drove by; protesters standing on destroyed vehicles waving banners and flags, etc.
And; no police presence where the rocks were being thrown at the ICE vehicles; a large contingent of police and vehicles stationed under an overpass (protection or strategy?) while the protesters lit cardboard to drop on police vehicles, etc.
And, clips of LA officials saying it's because the troops were pre-positioned — troops they didn't ask for and didn't want and didn't need and were making matters worse.
Then I flipped to Fox showing a clip of the LAPD chief, in a presser, saying his forces were overwhelmed by the rock throwers (technically cinderblock-piece throwers). He described how the protesters would put a large cinderblock and a hammer in their backpacks and when they were in a crowd, they would use the hammers to break up the blocks and pass around the concrete pieces to throw at the police. (Did CNN or BBC air that part of the presser?)
And then I checked here. No worries says Myesoteric, it's only a couple of hundred of mostly peaceful protesters.
And there was the chuckle, good ol' Eso assuring us we can't believe our lying eyes. Everything's fine. The LAPD can handle it.
Except, as I am finishing this—in real-time, CNN is running a live presser covering the LAPD chief saying that things are getting worse, and his forces are overwhelmed. Non-protest-related calls for police response are not being answered because all available manpower is involved in the protests.
GABut LAPD DID handle it? The guard had the primary objective of protecting federal personnel and the fed detention center. As far as I can see, they were not directly involved in shutting the protests down...that was all LAPD. They declared 'unlawful assembly' at one point in the evening and the protests were seemingly cleared out pretty quickly.
I'm still really struggling with the idea that the guard was sent in without a request to California but not on J6?Remember, my comment was a chuckle at the irony of the moment (my moment, as described).
Your question about the LAPD handling the situation seems to be an open-ended one. The LAPD chief is saying it's not over yet. He said, minutes ago, that, although they got through the last 2 days, things are getting worse and his forces are overwhelmed *shrug*
As for the troops being pre-positioned, I don't see that as a bad thing. A repeat of Seattle's 2020 riots shouldn't be allowed. If local authorities are overwhelmed (as in Seattle 2020), they should welcome the help.
GAFor the guard or military to be used as law enforcement directed toward citizens requires invoking the insurrection act though, correct? Otherwise, the only" help" that would be gotten from the guard would be standing over Federal buildings.
I don't know what authority is needed to use the Guard or Military (I am aware of the claims of opposing camps), but if they are needed to stop a repeat of 2020, that need is authority enough for me.
All sorts of dire 'what if' scenarios can be predicted, but the one we have seen fulfilled is a probable second "Seattle Summer of Love."
It will be good news if protecting Federal property is the only thing the guard needs to be involved with. And it will also be good that they are there and ready if they are needed.
GAWhile the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the military from performing civilian law enforcement duties, the Insurrection Act (which was not invoked in this situation) provides exceptions, particularly in situations of rebellion, domestic violence, or when the state is unable or unwilling to enforce federal law. I think California was willing and able. Ultimately, it was LAPD that got the job done.
This is the act Trump acted under --- all nice and legal. I sort of hate to bust up a "Trump broke the law moment. But he did not.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBJECT: Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions
Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of Federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of Federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to Federal immigration detention facilities and other Federal property. To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.
In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations. Further, I direct and delegate actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority. The members and units of the National Guard called into Federal service shall be at least 2,000 National Guard personnel and the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.
To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security prior to withdrawing any personnel from any location to which they are sent. The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security may delegate to subordinate officials of their respective Departments any of the authorities conferred upon them by this memorandum.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Yes, it appears legal — based on:
10 U.S.C. § 12406:
This law explicitly gives the President authority to call National Guard units into federal service in certain situations, such as:
Invasion
Rebellion
When laws of the United States cannot be enforced by regular means
The memo frames the violent protests as interfering with law enforcement — calling it a "form of rebellion." That language is used to legally justify using this section.
Presidential Powers under the Constitution:
The President is the Commander in Chief of the military and has broad discretion when federal law enforcement is being obstructed or federal property is at risk.
Delegation of Authority:
The memo properly delegates authority to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security — which is standard and legal in these situations.
The memo does not direct them to arrest people or perform law enforcement duties directly — only to “protect federal personnel and property.” That’s the legal gray area often walked during these deployments.In the one case where LBJ federalized the National Guard in Alabama, the reason was that the State was UNWILLING to enforce federal law.
I live 20 miles from LA. What you are describing are snapshots of what was going on. It has no continuity. The crux of the issue here is arresting people with no due process of law. Trump and company says, mass deportation won't work if every person they want to deport has due process of law.
Trump brought in the troops based on the notion that local law enforcement and state law enforcement were overwhelmed because they took an hour to get to the site. The reason they took so long is because there were very few people in the beginning of the protest and it was peaceful.
Trump even said the national guard was there keeping the peace when they had not even been deployed and were not there. Trump in an interview said they were spitting at the officers and that is his criteria for violence. "You spit, we hit." is what he said.
Trump deployed the troops without a request from the governor. He did it all on his own. Those troops were taking orders directly from Trump. There is nobody above Trump except God and the Supreme Court and neither one of the them are going to do anything about Trump and his dictatorial methods.
I believe this was a setup to incite violence to justify Trump bringing in the troops. What you saw at night with violence was not from those who were protesting ICE, but others who come out at night to create havoc. It gives them a cause and purpose.
Just keep this in mind. During the civil rights protests of the 60's, the governor requested the troops. There were pictures and videos taken of how the protestors were mistreated by law enforcement. That's when Johnson enacted the Civil Rights ACT.Trump is the crux of the matter for you. It's the protester's violence for me. That is what I spoke to, and that's the crux I noted.
GAWhat is different about this violence versus the j6 violence? The j6 rioters were called Patriots yet the people in California are called insurgents.... I don't get it
You don't... get it...
Attacking innocent people on the streets, or driving their teslas, trying to get to work, trying to get thru the day... people who have little or nothing to do with whatever excuse is being used to riot...
Vs.
People pissed with their government... directing their frustrations at the people responsible... the government, Congress, whose job it is to do the People's bidding and answer to the People... when they are irate, or mistrustful.
Yeah... don't see the difference at all...
Protesting in DC against the corrupt government
VS.
Beating granny Goosebalm to death because you are pissed at ICE... or DOGE... or you just don't care... just so long as you can steal something or hurt someone and get away with it...This makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry. I'm talking specifically about 2 protests....j6 and LA... One requires the National guard and now the Marines but the other didn't? Trump says if you "spit you will get hit" but pardoned those who beat officers with poles and pipes, trying to crush one of them and door jam.
This analogy makes no sense, and frankly, it's dishonest. You're acting like Trump didn’t try to authorize the National Guard on January 6, when multiple officials have testified that he did. Former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller stated under oath that Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops days before the event. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, confirmed in his own testimony that Trump wanted a “military presence” to ensure the event remained peaceful. Even Mayor Muriel Bowser requested only limited Guard assistance, and the Capitol Police and congressional leadership had the final say on deployment. The delays were not on Trump.
Now you're comparing that to LA, where the Guard, and now even Marines, are being brought in because of actual ongoing violence, but somehow that’s supposed to make Trump look worse?
Also, both riots were violent and destructive, and in my view, neither should be weighed as “worse” than the other. The damage and chaos on both sides are unacceptable. One can only guess that Trump realized his mistake in not ordering the Guard out sooner on January 6 and was determined not to repeat that error after witnessing the violence that did occur that day.CLAIM: Former President Donald Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 National Guard troops before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but was stopped by the House sergeant at arms, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to Jan. 6 about the National Guard response, he issued no such order before or during the rioting...
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-t … 6055113284
According to his testimony to the House select committee investigating the Capitol Hill insurrection, Miller stated that he was never given any direction, order, or knowledge of any plans of that nature from the President regarding 10,000 troops. He added that while there were plans for activating more personnel, this was for contingency purposes and not based on a specific order.
https://www.komu.com/news/nationworld/t … 0large.%22
If you had wanted the guard there on January 6th... The guard could have been there.I listened to the congressional hearings myself; that’s where I got the information I’ve shared. I take both men at their word, especially given their sworn testimony. I don’t even factor in media blurbs; they offer too little context and too much spin. I prefer clear facts; that’s what I respect. Yesterday, I corrected myself regarding Pelosi. The quote you offered came in a paragraph that shared a much different context than the one sentence.
During J6, they rioted because Trump didn't win the election fair and square. Trump and his governors were standing by with a fake electoral college slate that showed him as the winner. But, they didn't get a chance to present it. Thanks to Mike Pence and his control of the chamber..
They destroyed federal property and reeked violence on the capitol police, until Trump called them off. Now he has pardoned all those misfits, gangs, and paramilitary troops. He will probably give them government positions when he is elected for a third term.
Talk about not caring, Trump could care less about laws and the Constitution, he makes up his own laws and uses laws in the constitution that were meant for other uses to further his agenda . He wants to rid the country of those he thinks are not American and those who don't like him. He is just like any other conquer who wants to take over a country and become the supreme ruler..
Why do you ask me that? I was talking about the violence in LA. Where's the connection?
GAWhy didn't Trump immediately call in National Guard or the Military to kick MAGA out of the Capitol? Oh, that is right, he arranged for them to be their.
And as to the faux concern I hear on this forum about violent protestors, I don't recall the same outrage when over a 1,000 MAGA-types were rampaging through the halls of Congress." Oh, that is right, he arranged for them to be their."
The willingness, the eagerness, of the left to mouth outright lies always fascinates me. Do they think people actually believe their utterances? Do they find lying to be a moral action?
The closest you can come to supporting that lie is Trump's statement to "march peacefully", although he never mentioned entering the capitol at all...Do I need to go back and find all the proof that Trump was responsible for them being in the Capitol? Why do you keep denying what everybody else knows to be true?
Given that you just wrote "its the protestor's violence" is the crux for you, that implies to me you think all or almost all protestations are violent and not the 3 - 7 out of 100 that actually are.
Damn, you got me. I should have written "protesters'," not" Protester's." I didn't mean to imply that it was one guy.
You're right, it was at least 3 - 7 of them.
GA ;-)
TRUMP - DUE PROCESS? We don't need no stinking DUE PROCESS.
It is funny you should mention the Seattle Summer of Love. That is a wonderful example of making a mounting out of a mole hill. Nationwide, during that period,
- 93–96% of all protests during 2020 were peaceful and nondestructive.
ONLY 4–7% ended in violence or property damage, nationally—and Seattle’s figures align with this. To listen to the Right and those here, those figures are reversed.
A very small percentage of participants were violent agitators (e.g., looters, arsonists, shooters), though their exact share remains unmeasured.
1. How can troops be "prepositioned" with ICE being so secretive? That is what the LAPD is complaining about, ICE Is keeping them in the dark as they do with everything about themselves - does that remind you of the Russian secret police?
2. The Chief said minutes ago that it was Trump's actions and ICE that are making things difficult." The Chief said minutes ago that it was Trump's actions and ICE that are making things difficult."
It is challenging to track down and apprehend criminal migrants. Those who have been arrested were taken into custody by federal officers acting within the bounds of their legal authority. These officers are members of our federal law enforcement agencies, executing their duties as directed.
You started off with an untruth - "Protesters were not throwing rocks and fireworks - the very a few anarchists and agitators that are attracted to lawful, peaceful protests are doing that. That is a distinction the Left makes and the Right wants to ignore for messaging purposes.
GEE, I wonder why there was no police presence where ICE was - ICE won't tell them where they are going to be - go figure. Consequently, the police are loudly complaining that ICE is doing this to themselves.
You left out the part as well where the Chief and others were saying the REASON they were overwhelmed is because of ICE, not the peaceful protestors nor the anarchist/agitators.
Please know when you use the "protestor" to describe agitators (who, by definition aren't peaceful protestors), I have to question your bias and objectivity.The chuckle was good, but not good enough to argue reality with you. (or semantics)
GA ;-)Here is one article that understands and reports on the difference
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … hatgpt.com
Here is a recent headline - Los Angeles police chief says deployment of marines a surprise that could make policing protests harder –
From the same source - Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers were “overwhelmed” by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who show up at demonstrations to cause trouble.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv … hatgpt.com
Then there is this NPR / PBS / AP (simulcast in Guardian livestream)
Covered local leaders’ statements distinguishing between a few dozen troublemakers and hundreds to thousands of peaceful demonstrators.
PBS featured quotes from organizers urging nonviolent participation and cautioning against extremist provocateursOh hell, now CNN and the County Board Chair are telling untruths too. Both are describing scenes of "protesters" throwing rocks and other projectiles at police.
You better give them a call.
GAI believe he has a hotline to CNN, does he not? If not, he should... But unfortunately, CNN is not always reporting what it wants to be the truth.
Although this is a condemnation of CNN, it is not singling them out—all the other broadcasters do the same. But . . .
It's deja vu all over again. In 2020 Don Lemon did a CNN segment on the ongoing riots with live broadcasts during the worse moments streaming full-screen as a background. Lemon, in the foreground, was saying how peaceful things were going.
Sincerity was practically dripping from his lips as he described how the city had things under control.
Today, 5 years later, I see another CNN live clip with the LA street scenes streaming in the background as Mayor Bass is saying the protesters were mostly peaceful, it was the Federal troop presence that was the problem.
A fire blast from a commercial-grade fireworks tossed behind the police line erupted as she was speaking.
*Whataboutisms won't change the facts, and they are probably as right in their examples as this one is.
GAPeople live in two alternate realities in this country. There is the Fox MAGA news reality that Trump uses as his bullhorn or when he plays the victim when one of his cons has been uncovered. and there is the MSM that Trump has labeled as Fake news.
When in fact from my view point, it is Trump who is the fake. In day one in his first term he started called the MSM the Fake news. He did that at every press conference and his rallies. When questioned as to why he did that, he said, in this way I can protect myself by disqualifying those who try to attack me.
Trump's repeated use of the term "fake news" has had a significant impact on public trust in the media. His rhetoric has contributed to a more polarized perception of journalism, with some Americans becoming more skeptical of mainstream news sources while others rally behind them in opposition to his claims.
His rhetoric has also reshaped how news organizations operate. Some have doubled down on fact-checking and transparency, while others have leaned into partisan narratives. The result is a fragmented media landscape where trust is often dictated by political affiliation rather than journalistic standards.
This is typical of what Trump does. He has done the same thing with using tariffs to bring back manufacturing. Instead of having goods and service in place to replace those he has placed tariffs on, he just levies tariffs on all countries without concerning himself with the consequences of his actions.Just as an ironic aside - I was on a field training mission at Fort Irwin, CA many, many, many years ago when I was in the California National Guard (yeah, the same one that Trump probably illegally ordered into LA). It was early Spring, as I remembered. It had actually lightly snowed that morning.
We were having a joint FTX with elements of the 82nd Airborne who jumped in that morning a little after dawn. It was extremely windy and many soldiers were injured (I don't think any died) from being drug along the ground in their parashoots by the wind.
They came prepared for a California early Summer, they didn't realize that early Spring in the desert is a miserable place to be. They finally had to start sending the poor guys back into base in shifts to get warm. We even had a few that "surrendered" to us to get out of the cold and get warm clothes.
Although I don't know I would hope a lot of heads rolled for such piss poor prior planning.
Your last sentence sounds right to me, but it was the only part of your response that was related to my comment.
The two CNN presentations were live segments, not cherry-picked or spun Fox clips. And the point had nothing to do with Pres. Trump.
GA
And I was just watching a wide panorama of Los Angeles just before dusk showing an almost 100% peaceful scene even though on split screen Scott Jennings, CNN's Trump apologist, was saying LA was burning down in flames.
You can use all the anecdotal examples you want, the fact remains that 93% to 97% of all demonstrations that Summer were peaceful. They didn't show those on TV, only the 3 - 7% that were violent.
Of course, as was just demonstrated it is only the 3 - 7% that the Right-wing thinks that counts. Sad.
Is that where you going to leave it or are you going to provide proof.
Yep, they weren't careful with their words were they. Consequently, I can say that in those specific instances they are spreading misinformation. They are not perfect, for sure.
BTW, while I didn't call them, I did write them.
Yes, that would better, but best, I think, would be "fervent—conveying passion without tipping into extremism."
Nope, you passed fervent the year 'Jake' left. Maybe around 2017 or 2018? Do you remember him? He was your side's version of 'ahorseback'.
GA ;-)Sorry, drawing a blank. At first I thought you meant Jake Tapper, but that is obviously wrong.
Yes,'extremism' and you applied it only to Trump, and not another.
If you mean Biden, they you are clearly smoking something hallucinogenic.
I apply extremist to:
- Trump and his whole entourage in his second term.
- MAGA
- AOC and her group
- I am close to including Bernie Sanders, but not there yet.
- At least three on this forum
- Rand Paul
- Marjorie Taylor Green
- 2/3rds of the Republican House caucus
- 1/3rd of the Republican Senate caucus
- Fox News, Brietbart, Newsmax
- MSNBC
Trump escalates again - he sent in the Marines, 700 of them. That is in addition to the 2,000 National Guard Trump also deployed (against the wishes of everybody in California) and around 12,000 sworn local officers that are available to control what was a few hundred peaceful protestors and a handful of agitators. (There are about 24,000 sworn officers in and around Los Angeles, I assumed half of them are deployable to protest sites.)
In direct response to Trump's escalations and ICE's illegal operations, the peaceful crowds have grown to 2,000 to 3,000 today and the violent agitators maybe to 100 or so plus 50+ that have been arrested so far.
It should be known that until today the only nations that have called in active duty soldier to battle with the nations citizens are ones like Chile and Argentina in the old days and Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and Myanmar - ALL DICTATORSHIPS. That should give patriotic Americans a pause!
Also done in those countries but not in America UNTIL TRUMP was disappearing people. Trump is doing it daily and only a handful of them are real criminals! He tells everybody he wants them to do it the legal way. Well guess what? When they try, ICE goes into the proceedings and takes them away rarely to be seen again.
That is sort of like you getting a ticket and told to appear in court or your car will be impounded. You show up, they impound your car anyway AND they arrest you and disappear you. THAT is what Trump and ICE are doing whether you want to believe it or not.
So, as I write this now, LA is effectively under martial law.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/la-pro … p-06-09-25He is a man of his word, he will protect Americans and American values. After all, this is America, and some of us like what we have built. Some don't.
Deleted
You're acting like Trump didn’t try to authorize the National Guard on January 6, when multiple officials have testified that he did. Former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller stated under oath that Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops days before the event. General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (under oath), confirmed in his own testimony that Trump wanted a “military presence” to ensure the event remained peaceful.
Now you're comparing that to LA, where the Guard, and now even Marines, are being brought in because of an actual threat of more violence, which I saw over the weekend. But somehow that’s supposed to make Trump look worse?I am not acting like it - he didn't. Trump has been proven a liar when he says he called the national guard to protect the Capitol and those in it.
Jan 5, 2021: Trump tells SecDef Miller to "Do whatever necessary... to protect demonstrators"
Jan 6, 12:53 p.m. - [u]More than a 1,000 rioters/insurrectionists breach Capitol perimeter[/b] - Zero hour
Zero plus 2h 7 m later: Jan 6, ~3:00 p.m. - Secretary Miller verbally approves Guard mobilization
Zero plus 2h: 45m: later[.b] Jan 6, 3:38 p.m. - Trump spokesperson McEnany LIES to America by saying the Guard is on the way, "at President Trump's direction" (That may be why you think Trump requested the guard)
[b]Zero plus 3h 24m later: Jan 6, 4:17 p.m. - Trump releases “go home” video and insurrectionists begin to disperse.
Zero plus 4h 47m later: Jan 6, 5:40 p.m. -First Guard troops arrive on Capitol grounds
THAT is the truth, not Trump's lies which you propagated.
I find it disappointing that that you minimized the mayhem MAGA visited upon the Capitol and America that day by writing "are being brought in because of an actual threat of more violence". The obvious meaning is that you don't think their was an actual threat of violence on Jan 6 to congress people and the police that warranted calling in the national guard, let alone the Marines.
Might I remind you that what Trump made happen on Jan 6 was an actual threat to the democracy of America, while what is happening in LA is not even close to that! The LA police don't want Trump's so-called "help". The LA mayor doesn't want Trump's so-called "help". The California governor didn't ask for Trump's so-called "help"! Why didn't they want Trump's help? Because they had all the resources needed to keep things under control - which they have proceeded to do. They all said it would make things worse and they have been proven correct.And...
"Former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that then-President Trump gave no orders to prepare troops before that day.
When specifically asked about whether there was a direct order from Trump to have Guard troops ready, Miller said there was not."
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3576 … ore-jan-6/You know you are going to be ignored, don't you? You offered an irrefutable fact.
What I am struggling to understand at this time is; since ICE exercised and completed their mission through exercising the warrants and placing people under arrest, why didn't they just leave? Why did they hang around and engage with the protesters? Certainly, perhaps obviously, at that point the protesters were not an obstacle. All they had to do was get in their vehicles and drive away.
A couple of the clips I mentioned did show the ICE vehicles trying to speed past the protesters. To get away. I missed any showing ICE hanging around the protesters*.
*(I did see a couple of clips of ICE standing around places of apprehension during the time of the apprehensions, but not after. *shrug*)
Caveat for all: My comments are only about what I've seen, not a declaration of 'what is.'
GAThanks. Living about a hour or so from it I imagine my TV coverage early in the game was much different. It didn't look like there were enough protesters to matter at all. It appeared there were more ICE personnel than protesters.
I caught that coverage! And yes there really were very few protesters to begin with.
And now, because of Trump, there is a lot of protestors. I think that was his plan.
The ice agents were being attacked at Federal facilities. They did leave the fashion district where arrests were made.
What Happened — Step by Step
1. ICE Targeted Criminal Migrants
ICE planned and executed targeted raids early on June 6, 2025, in the Los Angeles area.
Locations included:
A Home Depot in Paramount
A warehouse in the Fashion District
Additional stops in the San Fernando Valley
Targets were individuals with outstanding deportation orders, prior felony convictions, or known gang affiliations.
2. Arrests Were Completed On-Site
At the sites of arrest:
ICE secured and removed the suspects quickly.
In most cases, they left the arrest locations with no sustained clashes.
The violence did NOT start at the Home Depot or Fashion District.
3. Transports Moved to Federal Detention Sites
Arrested individuals were brought to:
The ICE field office at 300 N Los Angeles Street
The Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC-LA)
4. Riots Erupted at Federal Facilities
Protesters began to converge at these federal detention locations, not the arrest sites.
The violence began hours later, after ICE was already inside processing detainees.
Protesters tried to block exits, destroyed vehicles, and attacked law enforcement personnel on site.
They did their job, the job they were sent to do. Where did you get the idea that they stayed at the buildings where they were making the arrests? They were quick and left those areas."Targets were individuals with outstanding deportation orders, prior felony convictions, or known gang affiliations." - No they weren't, not entirely. I could only find documentation on six out of 118 swept up that had serious criminal records. They were:
Cuong Chanh Phan: convicted of second‑degree murder (mass shooting at a 1994 graduation party)
en.wikipedia.org
+15
dhs.gov
+15
hindustantimes.com
+15
Rolando Veneracion‑Enriquez: sexual assault and burglary in California
foxnews.com
+2
dhs.gov
+2
nypost.com
+2
Lionel Sanchez‑Laguna: multiple violent charges including firing into a home, battery, child cruelty, DUI
foxnews.com
+2
dhs.gov
+2
nypost.com
+2
Armando Ordaz: convicted sexual battery and other violent felonies
nypost.com
+2
dhs.gov
+2
foxnews.com
+2
Jose Gregorio Medranda Ortiz: 11-year drug trafficking sentence
ice.gov
+5
dhs.gov
+5
foxnews.com
+5
Victor Mendoza‑Aguilar, Delfino Aguilar‑Martinez, and others with convictions for assault, drug offenses, weapons charges
foxnews.com
+2
dhs.gov
+2
nypost.com
+2
So, it seems to me that 95% didn't meet the stated criteria.Do you not understand that "targeting" does not mean that other criminals spotted in the area cannot also be swept up? Criminals usually surround themselves with other criminals; there would not only be no reason to leave them alone to continue their life of crime, it would be 100% against the goal of removing ALL of them.
Apparently. To me targeting means they know who they are going after, where they are, and when they will be there. There was no reason to arrest 112 more people they weren't interested it.
What other "criminals" were these 6 "surrounded" by? Citizens maybe?
So, just because you can’t find the actual record for each person arrested, I’m supposed to take your word over everyone else’s? Get real. You seem a little too confident that your opinion settles the matter. It’s a bit odd.
I trust that if the federal government says these individuals were arrested, then they broke the law and ICE acted within its legal authority. At this stage, I’m not concerned with the severity of the crime, what matters to me is that their detention is lawful. I fully support the deportation of any migrant who is determined not to have the legal right to remain here. I stand behind due process, and I don’t care if it takes 20 years to sort this out, I’m fully on board.
A DHS spokesperson claimed that many of those detained had no criminal background but were in violation of immigration law and thus eligible for removal. Good with me,
Tania Luna, Acting Deputy Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said in a May 2025 press briefing:
“Our enforcement efforts prioritize individuals who pose a threat to public safety, including those with criminal convictions and final orders of removal. However, during these operations, ICE officers also detain individuals who are in the country illegally, regardless of criminal history, to uphold immigration laws and maintain border integrity.”
— U.S. ICE Press Briefing, May 2025What is the definition of being illegal in this country? If it is undocumented then the constitution gives them the right to due process of law. The hook here is Trump, because or his mass deportation does not make due process possible when they are deporting thousands of people at the same time.
Undocumented immigrants in the U.S. **do have rights**, despite their immigration status. The **U.S. Constitution** extends certain protections to all individuals within the country, not just citizens. Here are some key rights they have:
- **Due Process:** The **Fifth Amendment** guarantees that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This means undocumented immigrants have the right to a fair legal process, including deportation hearings.
- **Equal Protection:** The **Fourteenth Amendment** ensures that all persons within U.S. jurisdiction receive equal protection under the law, regardless of citizenship status.
- **Access to Education:** The Supreme Court case **Plyler v. Doe (1982)** ruled that states cannot deny free public education to children based on their immigration status.
- **Freedom of Speech & Religion:** Like all individuals in the U.S., undocumented immigrants have the right to express their opinions and practice their religion freely.
- **Protection from Discrimination:** Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on race, national origin, or ethnicity, which applies to undocumented individuals as well."Undocumented immigrants in the U.S. **do have rights**, despite their immigration status." - But the Right, I should say MAGA, in this country simply doesn't care. They are "others" and therefore have no rights in America.
I can't find them because ICE hides the data so that they won't be embarrassed by how many non-criminals they round up and disappear.
My sarcastic self would say that ICE's directive from Trump is to terrorize the immigrant community, so they didn't leave.
Or, maybe closer to the truth is that Trump is trying to drive a crisis so that he can do exactly what he is doing now.
I am not alone in thinking that this whole thing is happening because of Trump's lies- specifically the one about only looking for criminals first.
It really seems like these are dragnets picking up whoever looks the part and they sort it out later.
How about we ground things with a simple fact, just for everyone's benefit, before the legal experts rush in to dazzle us with their brilliance. After all, how does one ignore a fact without even blinking?
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBJECT: Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions
Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of Federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of Federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to Federal immigration detention facilities and other Federal property. To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.
In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations. Further, I direct and delegate actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority. The members and units of the National Guard called into Federal service shall be at least 2,000 National Guard personnel and the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.
To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security prior to withdrawing any personnel from any location to which they are sent. The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security may delegate to subordinate officials of their respective Departments any of the authorities conferred upon them by this memorandum.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Such a very simple document, not sure how its context could be skewed. Trump handled this situation with good lodgic, and In my view, he let all know, this kind of crap will not be tolerated --- at all.If Trump actually gave a sh*t about violence against law enforcement he wouldn’t have pardoned every single one of the scumbags who attacked the officers who defended our Capitol on January 6th.
Violence against the police is permitted, so long as you’re doing it for him.Trump may get his wish of declaring martial law - he is driving protests across the country now -
Santa Ana — just southeast of LA
San Francisco
New York City
Atlanta
Louisville
Kentucky
Dallas
In response to the arrest of union leader David Huerta, Trump Supporters, taking his word that all labor supports him now,
Boston
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
Seattle
Washington, DC
Connecticut
New York
Cudos to the police for keeping their use of weapons down to "less than lethal". My bet is many of them (and the national guard) support the demonstrators given that some of them may know the friends and families of those being disappeared by ICE.
(Sarcasm) That must really piss Trump off.Rather sad that you think police support violating the law they have sworn to uphold.
But you're probably right.Only conservatives believe peaceful protests are violating the law. The Left supports 1st Amendment rights.
Rather sad, Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but he doesn't do it...go figure? The first amendment is about freedom of speech, but he won't let higher education people speak about the genocide that is going on in Gaza. They are now identified as terrorists.
The constitution states that every one is given due process of the law and is innocent until proven, guilty in a court of law. But Trump's mass deportation will not allow that because the courts would be jammed with 1,000 of cases. Instead, ICE just makes people disappear to never be seen again.He has no problem with free speech. He seems to have a problem with free speech that leads to chaos in our streets and the killing of jews in our streets. Migrants who our being deported are being deported due to immigration violations. We have laws... ICE is not making people disappear. Please offer a source for that comment if you feel you can prove it. Otherwise, that is misinformation. This is America, we do not need violence in our streets, that is not free speech. I am tired of seeing such hyperbolic statements posted here. My God, if you feel ICE is making people disappear, you need to source that comment.
El Salvador and tell me if those people who Trump mass deported in the middle of the night can be identified. They all had head their heads shaved wore the same clothes and were bent over so you couldn't see who they were.
Donald Trump’s administration has been carrying out a **mass deportation operation** that has sent migrants, including Venezuelan nationals, to **El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT)**.
The deportation effort has involved **revoking temporary legal status** for hundreds of thousands of people and expanding **Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)** powers to remove millions.
A federal judge recently ruled that **migrants deported to El Salvador must be given due process** to challenge their removal. The Trump administration invoked the **Alien Enemies Act of 1798** to fast-track deportations, arguing that certain migrants were affiliated with the Venezuelan gang **Tren de Aragua**. However, the court found that many deportees had **no criminal records** and were denied the opportunity to contest their deportation.
The administration has faced **legal challenges** over its use of wartime powers to bypass standard immigration procedures, with courts ruling that deportees must be allowed to challenge their removability before being sent abroad. The Supreme Court has also weighed in, stating that deportees must be given **enough notice and time** to seek relief in court.He has also sent several Legal Immigrants and worse American Citizens, mainly children.
"enough time and notice" - Only dictators and their supporters and defenders don't want to do that or give any Due Process at all.
How do you know they are being deported for that, or even if they are migrants at all? ICE won't tell you.
OK, this makes a good place to source my "disappear" comments (other than it is generally known to be true if you are plugged into any reliable news reports at all. Here goes (keep in mind, this is only a partial list):
ICE Detainee Disappearances Since February 2025
New Mexico (Mar 2025): ICE announced it had arrested four dozen (48) New Mexico residents during raids in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Roswell. Within days, all 48 “have been forcibly disappeared,” according to an ACLU-New Mexico complaint.
ICE has never released their names or locations; the ACLU notes ICE “has not disclosed their identities, whereabouts, detention conditions, or whether they have access to legal counsel” – effectively causing them to “vanish” from public view
. The complaint (filed Mar. 17) calls on DHS to investigate and restore transparency for the detained New Mexicans
aclu-nm.org
https://sourcenm.com/2025/03/17/ice-has … %20Roswell
https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/press-releas … 0knowledge
.
New York (Mar 27, 2025): In Sackets Harbor, NY, ICE agents swept into a dairy farm at dawn and detained a local mother and her three elementary-aged children (ages 2–8)
. The family was flown thousands of miles away and imprisoned at a Karnes County, Texas facility, with no local notification
. Local officials and the New York Immigration Coalition report the children were “snatched from their home and disappeared,” leaving their community in shock
. After mass protests in Sackets Harbor and pressure from both political parties, New York’s governor announced the family’s immediate release – the mother and kids were freed and returned home about a week later
https://www.nyic.org/2025/03/mother-and … in%20Texas
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ,%E2%80%9D
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/nx-s1-53 … 2C%20Brian
Florida (late Mar/Apr 2025): A University of Florida student, Felipe Zapata, vanished from public view after a traffic stop in Gainesville in late March. State Rep. Yvonne Hinson and Zapata’s mother reported that ICE quietly detained him and moved him from Gainesville to Jacksonville and then to Krome Detention Center in Miami-Dade – none of which appeared in ICE’s public detainee locator
. For days his family had “no idea” where he was; he was never listed online in ICE’s custody system
. Florida leaders have publicly questioned why Zapata – a law-abiding student – was not just cited and released, and protest that ICE held him without adequate cause or notice
https://www.local10.com/news/local/2025 … e%20County
.
Louisiana (Apr 22 & 24, 2025): ICE arrested two immigrant families in the New Orleans area (the NOLA ICE field office) on April 22 and April 24. According to an ACLU press release, each family (two mothers and their minor children, including three U.S. citizens ages 2, 4 and 7) was held incommunicado by ICE
. In both cases, ICE “refus[ed] or fail[ed] to respond to multiple attempts by attorneys and family members to contact them,” abruptly cutting off calls
. Advocates say the parents and children were effectively isolated during the arrests. Both families were then deported within days; one family’s 7-year-old cancer patient was deported without his medication
. The ACLU notes these actions violated ICE’s own policies (and constitutional due process), and it has called for investigations and legal relief for the “disappeared” families
.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/ice … e%20number
California – Los Angeles (June 6–7, 2025): In a series of large-scale workplace raids in Los Angeles (Ambiance Apparel and related sites), ICE arrested dozens of mostly Latino workers. Families report that after the raids they could not reach their loved ones. One daughter said her father had been “handcuffed… chained” in the arrest, and “we haven’t had communication with my dad. We don’t know anything”
. Relatives and lawyers scrambled to locate the detainees; the Washington Post notes advocates were “scrambling to find information” as news broke that at least some detainees were swiftly deported (even Mexico’s foreign minister confirmed four had been expelled within 24 hours)
. The speed of removals and lack of transparency prompted mass protests in LA. (ICE has released no official tally of who was detained, and detainees have been largely invisible in ICE’s locator system.)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ,%E2%80%9D
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrat … -migrants/
California – (Border/San Diego, early 2025): A Canadian national working in California (Jasmine Mooney) says she was detained by ICE after a border visit and held in custody for two weeks without any explanation or access to counsel
. Mooney, who had a valid work visa, recounts being escorted from an immigration office into custody, then put in a “freezing cell” for two weeks “without warning or explanation”
. She ultimately received lawyers and media attention, but says compared to many others she was “lucky” – highlighting how easily ICE can detain legal visitors incommunicado
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … a%20lawyer
Texas (Mar 2025 – “Alien Enemies” deportations): In mid-March 2025, ICE deported a group of detained Venezuelan (and some Salvadoran) migrants under the WWII-era “Alien Enemies Act.” Families in Texas (San Antonio and elsewhere) report their relatives literally vanished from ICE’s records. One man’s family saw his name suddenly return “zero matching records” in the ICE locator
. In fact, dozens of Venezuelan detainees who had been in removal proceedings disappeared overnight from the database after ICE flew 137 of them to a prison in El Salvador
. Lawyers say these migrants (many without criminal records) were given no notice; the detainees’ location and status remain unknown to families. Advocates are preparing legal challenges, noting this silent transfer deprived them of access to counsel or legal remedy
.https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/03/22/trump-venezuela-migrants-el-salvador/
Also, please don't accuse me of relying solely on CNN again!I read all of your links. I critique the first link.
This article clearly offers only one side of the issue and heavily leans on emotional testimony and political advocacy without fully addressing the legal framework that governs immigration enforcement in the United States. The fact is, ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operates under federal authority and has every legal right to detain individuals who are in the country unlawfully, including those who have violated civil immigration laws such as illegal entry or re-entry after deportation. These are enforceable offenses under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and ICE does not need prior approval from local officials or mayors to carry out enforcement actions. Furthermore, ICE is not obligated to notify local jurisdictions before executing lawful arrests.
The claim that individuals were "disappeared" is highly charged language, but legally, once someone is in ICE custody, their information may not be immediately accessible to the public due to privacy laws (like the Privacy Act of 1974), ongoing investigations, or delays in processing. Detainee locator tools require accurate identifying information, and the failure of third-party legal advocates to obtain such information is not evidence of wrongdoing. While due process concerns are always valid and should be monitored, there is no evidence presented in the article that any constitutional or statutory rights were violated.
What this article lacks is context around the legal foundation for ICE’s actions and the operational procedures they follow. It paints a picture of law enforcement overreach while omitting the simple fact that federal immigration enforcement is not contingent upon state or local permission, nor is ICE’s duty suspended because local governments disagree with federal law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives the federal government the authority to regulate immigration. Therefore, while advocacy organizations may object to the methods or implications of enforcement, that doesn’t make the enforcement itself unlawful.
In my view, ICE is doing its job, a hard job. I am very much on board with migrants being removed legally, and there could be some mistakes. Anyone detained illegally has recourse to our court systems. If ICE has a detainment order on a migrant, they legally are within their rights to pick them up, take them to a detention center, and then due process should be applied.
I don’t have time to review all the cases you provided, but I’d like to ask: were any of the detainees American citizens, or migrants for whom ICE lacked documentation confirming they were in the country illegally at the time of their detention?What due process is applied, when you have mass deportations? That is the purpose of mass deportations, The courts would be jammed with all the deportees who have a legitimate case for being deported without cause. It's a brilliant policy by Stephen Miller. Now he has demanded ICE increase their quotas because they have not met his goals of 3,000 per day.
Stephen Miller, a top Trump aide, has reportedly been pressuring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to **increase daily arrest quotas**. According to sources, Miller set a new target of **3,000 arrests per day**, doubling the previous quota. He allegedly told ICE officials to **cast a wide net**, targeting not just criminals but anyone in the country illegally, even suggesting raids at places like **Home Depot and 7-Eleven**. His directives have sparked **protests in Los Angeles**, leading to a **militarized response**, including National Guard deployment.I realize, and even understand, that you do not agree with Trump's immigration policies and the sweeping deportations of migrants who legally do not belong in the country for one reason or another. However, what he is doing is exactly what he said he would do: enforce immigration laws more aggressively and prioritize the removal of those here unlawfully. I understand the concern about large-scale deportations, but it's important to clarify that due process is still required by law, regardless of the scale. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that everyone on U.S. soil, including undocumented immigrants, is entitled to basic legal protections.
Even in situations where ICE increases enforcement under political pressure, including from advisers like Stephen Miller, who is known for pushing hardline immigration goals, individuals cannot be deported without proper notice, an opportunity to be heard, and in most cases, a court hearing. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this in two 2025 rulings, which held that even when the government invokes the Alien Enemies Act or other extraordinary powers, migrants must receive due process, including access to federal courts and the ability to challenge their removal.
One decision specifically blocked the deportation of Venezuelan nationals without hearings, emphasizing that constitutional rights cannot be suspended, even under aggressive enforcement agendas. So while some may push for mass deportations as a policy goal, the legal framework still demands that each case follow due process, a principle that courts have made clear remains non-negotiable.
As for the protests in response to these policies, yes, we live in a democracy, and peaceful protest is a protected right, and I support that. However, in my view, what we’ve often seen, particularly from the far left, is a pattern where protests are no longer peaceful. The moment destruction, intimidation, or rioting enters the picture, the integrity of those protests is lost. If the National Guard is called in, it’s usually a response to unrest that goes beyond free expression. Expressing disagreement with policy is vital in a democracy, but that expression should be lawful and respectful of others’ rights, too. In the end, disagreement over policy doesn't give anyone a pass to ignore legal frameworks or to descend into lawlessness.
The protests we’re seeing are far from peaceful, and the fact that prominent voices in the Democratic Party appear to support or excuse this kind of disruptive and often violent behavior is very telling to many of us watching from the sidelines. One would expect responsible leadership to take the high road, promote lawful discourse, and work within the system, yet time and again, that opportunity is missed.Which prominent voices in the Democratic party are supporting violence?
However, in my view, what we’ve often seen, particularly from the far left, is a pattern where protests are no longer peaceful...
And are you saying that everyone who came to protest in LA came with the intention of perpetrating violence? Did the folks who perpetrated violence, the ones arrested for violence, did they come to the protest for the cause? Or did they come because it was a reason to perpetrate violence? It seems as though everyone who attended the protest is being stereotyped or lumped into one group...you do know that there were prayer vigils each day? Pastors and congregations of all faiths were there?Unfortunately, that argument falls on deaf ears. As far as the Right is concerned, if there is one violent act out of protest of 1,000, then that is a riot and the other 999 are criminals as well.
It means nothing to them that in the Summer of BLM, 93 - 97% of the protests were peaceful and only 3% - 7% were violent. Then ONLY thing that counts is the latter statistic."And are you saying that everyone who came to protest in LA came with the intention of perpetrating violence?" Willow
No, nor did I indicate that sentiment. To borrow a quote from Trump --- "You also had some very fine people on both sides"
"Did the folks who perpetrated violence, the ones arrested for violence, did they come to the protest for the cause?" Willow
I have no way of knowing what any individual protester was thinking or why they chose to attend, and I imagine it would be impossible for anyone to determine that with certainty. I tend to feel that Trump's sentiment, that both good and bad people attend protests, is the most plausible explanation.
It is good to hear prayer vigils are being attended.Pick a number on the percentage of people who showed up at the peaceful protests intent on violence then. Would it be 1%, 10%, 50%, 75%, or 95%? Based on previous protests, since there is a ton of history to research, take an educated guess.
I have no idea, nor do I care. It can take one to hurt many. Unfortunately, there are troublemakers at the protest that reflect on those who did show up to have a peaceful protest. It's so odd that the left's protests always seem to turn violent do to bad actors. I mean, as Trump once said --- “You also had some very fine people on both sides"
This isn’t about whether ICE has the legal authority to detain undocumented immigrants. It’s about what happens after they do—and the unacceptable fact that the 48 people that were taken into custody in New Mexico, not one has been heard from again, even more than 60 days later.
The issue raised in the article was not about enforcement authority—it was about how that authority is being exercised:
- In ways that obscure the whereabouts of detainees,
- That bypass local officials entirely, and
- That leave families and legal counsel in the dark, sometimes permanently.
These aren’t administrative glitches. This is a pattern of secrecy and disappearance—and that pattern has real human consequences.
Dismissing the term “disappeared” as overly emotional ignores what families and advocates are living through. When individuals vanish into custody and even attorneys can’t locate them, that is enforced invisibility—a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not democratic governance.
If you defend that by citing privacy laws, consider how quickly ICE released photos of arrests in Los Angeles—including actions involving the illegal use of the National Guard. Clearly, when ICE wants to be visible, it is.
And finally, to those who justify this by saying, “They broke the law,” let’s be honest: most of us do too. Do you turn yourself in for speeding? Would you report your underage grandchild for drinking alcohol? We rightly extend understanding in those cases—but when it comes to people who cross a border and immediately turn themselves in to apply for asylum, suddenly the law becomes sacred? That’s not about justice. That’s about selective punishment.
To answer your question about American citizens being taken. I have no idea and neither do you are anyone else. Why? Because ICE isn't talking.This argument is built almost entirely on assumptions and emotion, with no concrete evidence to support the accusations made against ICE. The claim that 48 individuals detained in New Mexico have "disappeared" may sound alarming, but it is framed without offering a single verifiable fact or formal record confirming misconduct. ICE operates under strict legal guidelines, including due process, detention protocols, and privacy regulations, many of which are in place to protect the rights of both the detainees and the officers involved. The idea that ICE is purposely hiding detainees, bypassing local officials, or denying access to legal counsel is a serious charge, and it should not be made lightly or without documented proof.
Privacy laws that limit the release of detainee information exist precisely to protect individuals in custody, this is not a sinister policy, but a standard feature of responsible governance. The argument that ICE is “selectively visible” ignores operational security needs and misrepresents lawful procedures as malicious. Suggesting moral equivalency between crossing a national border illegally and petty violations like speeding or underage drinking is intellectually dishonest and trivializes the rule of law. We can have compassion, but that does not mean erasing legal boundaries or accusing an entire federal agency of authoritarian behavior without solid evidence. If ICE is being tight-lipped, it's likely for legal and security reasons, not because it’s engaging in covert wrongdoing. Until critics present clear, verifiable evidence of systemic abuse, these claims remain just that, claims.
Your articles offer allegations with no actual evidence but conjecture. Like they are trying to put together a puzzle, but the pieces don't fit.Your side may be working from emotion and assumptions, but mine certainly is not.
I am not "assuming" that all those detained in NM the article is talking about are still, to this day, 60+ days later, missing!
"but it is framed without offering a single verifiable fact or formal record confirming misconduct. " - Those 48 people are STILL missing, how can you sluff that off?
"If ICE is being tight-lipped, it's likely for legal and security reasons, not because it’s engaging in covert wrongdoing." - Now who is talking from assumptions. [In America[/b], there are no so-called "legal and security reasons" to disappear people. Our Constitution strictly prohibits it. Since it does, that means they are engaging in covert wrongdoing.
Gerstein v. Pugh (1975): Establishes that any meaningful detention requires a prompt probable‑cause hearing before a neutral judge — unconstitutional otherwise is just ONE ruling establishing that ICE is engaging in Covert Wrongdoing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerstein_ … hatgpt.com
Clearly ICE is in the wrong, why do you keep rationalizing that they are not?
But since Trump doesn't believe in the Constitution when it gets in his way, Trump will never believe in the foundation of American society - Due Process.
So you believed what he made up and put in my mouth?
Tell me, if you caught your underage grandson or great-grandson drinking, would you turn them into the police since they were breaking the law? Do you speed? If so, you are a criminal in your view, did you know that?
A criminal in the same fashion and degree of an asylum-seeker crossing the border in order to turn themselves in (which you wouldn't to yourself or your grandkid) so that they can apply for asylum.
PROVE IT! Where are your many links and your vague OPs that CNN offers up? You are providing conjecture, your view. "Trump may get his wish of declaring martial law - he is driving protests across the country now -" ECO
Can you read Trump's mind? I, for one, am sick of your outward, blatant misstatements.You may be sick of the Truth I keep putting in front of you, but you have yet to prove anything I have said are "blatant misstatements" or even bother to point them out.
Prove what? Prove there were demonstrations in the cities I listed? You ignore the proof I give you don't you?
What "conjecture"? Isn't that what Trump is trying to do in LA? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that all these protests are popping up because Trump is overreacting to what is going on in LA or that ICE is disappearing people (yes, I will proved proof of that shortly).
Are you going to tell me you wouldn't protest if ICE came along and arrested your relatives such that you have no clue as to why or what happened to them (until they turn up in El Salvador or someplace, if they turn up at all)?
To add to one of Willowarbor's comments.
Newsom is using two laws against Trump's usurpation of California's right to police its own state.
1. The 10th Amendment which decrees that any powers not specifically given to the federal government, nor withheld from the states, are reserved to those states or the public. Newsom argues that that policing and crime control are basic state rights, and that President Donald Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard infringed on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s role as commander-in-chief of the state’s National Guard. While the president does have the right to mobilize the Guard, the suit argues that the Guard was not “properly federalized” in this case, and that the administration violated California’s sovereignty.. THAT sounds like an argument the Conservatives on the Supreme Court (and most conservatives here would listen to.
2. The Posse Comitatus Act: This act, introduced in 1878 after the end of the Reconstruction era, prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Newsom argues that the use of the military for domestic law enforcement “is reserved for dire, narrow circumstances.”
The commentary I have read/heard thus far seems to indicate that Trump will have the upper hand in this. In my reading of the laws, I am not so sure.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/la-pro … p-06-10-25Trump is the president he used
I post for about the thrid time ---- https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … hatgpt.com
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBJECT: Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions
Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of Federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of Federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to Federal immigration detention facilities and other Federal property. To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.
In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations. Further, I direct and delegate actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority. The members and units of the National Guard called into Federal service shall be at least 2,000 National Guard personnel and the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.
To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security prior to withdrawing any personnel from any location to which they are sent. The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security may delegate to subordinate officials of their respective Departments any of the authorities conferred upon them by this memorandum.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Stop posting misinformation. Trump had every legal right to usurp a Governor whom he found incompetent to do his job. Trump assessed the situation and made a presidential decision. You may not appreciate a president that is willing to keep America safe and our streets safe --- I do
Another Bold Agenda move - hiring an idiot like RFJ Jr. to be head of health in America.
RFK Jr. removes all current members of CDC vaccine advisory committee
Given his longstanding opposition to life-saving vaccines, this is not surprising.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/health/r … rs-removedMaking the elimination of USAID, NPR, and PBS permanent
Isn't it sad that some House Republicans who oppose passing the recission package that does this are concerned, apparently, only about the loss of NPR and PBS and not the millions of lives that will be lost if USAID is eliminated (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lives ALREADY lost because of Trump)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/politics … -cuts-voteTrump, via his obedient servant Pam Bondi, attempted to take over the DC Bar with Bondi's brother running to become its president. Fortunately, they were crushed.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/09/politics … -cuts-voteDistraction.
Trump administration races to fix a big mistake: DOGE fired too many people
Across the government, officials are rehiring federal workers who were forced out or encouraged to resign.
Bannon calls for special counsel probe of Musk
Pentagon watchdog investigates if Hegseth’s staff were told to delete Signal messages
And so on...
Manipulation.
Senate GOP deeply divided over cutting cost of ‘big, beautiful bill’
Stephen Miller wages war on the GOP’s libertarians
Stephen Miller is leading a public war against the Republican Party’s libertarians as he reframes the “one big, beautiful bill” to being the key that unlocks President Trump‘s mass deportation agenda.
Going mainly after libertarian-leaning lawmakers such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who have brought up concerns about the megabill’s deficit impact, the White House deputy chief of staff — and chief architect of Trump’s immigration agenda — is taking a sledgehammer to what remains of the libertarian-conservative fusionism that was prominent in the party pre-Trump.
“The libertarians in the House and Senate trying to take down this bill — they’re not stupid. They just don’t care,” Miller said last week.
“Immigration has never mattered to them; it will never matter to them. Deportations have never mattered to them; it will never matter to them. You will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.”
Stephen Miller on X:
Stephen Miller
Jun 9
While ICE officers are battling violent mobs in Los Angeles, Rand Paul is trying to cut funding for deportations and border security.Boy, talk about fraud, waste, and abuse - Trump is a master at all three.
"Troops deployed to LA will cost $134M, Pentagon official says"
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/1 … s-00396632Trump must keep our Nation safe, our streets safe. This is one of the most important jobs he has.
You don't have a clue about the Mexican culture in California. I live 10 miles from Santa Ana. California has migrant workers who come here and do the manual work that no body else wants to do for the pay they get. The come with their families and pick crops, work in hotels, motels, and hospitals. Taking those people away is going to have an impact on the entire economic structure. Prices will be so much higher for every thing they do.
Trump says they are taking are jobs, raping our women, and selling dope on the streets. Can you tell me how many of those people who are being arrested by ICE% fit that description or even the ones who are protesting? I have lived in California for my whole life. Yes we do have gangs, but for the most part our streets are safe.Save for LA, where it seems it is only about 7%, a little over 50% fit that category. But that will be diminishing, or maybe even is now, as they keep arresting them. There is only a small finite number in America.
Also, I meant to report this elsewhere, but in the LA numbers, the 44 or so they said they captured, some of them were already in jail, lol.It's like a quota that they have to meet. so they will even go to jails and deport them to make dear leader happy. After all, they are only doing there jobs as outlined by Trump and Stephen Miller.
Then why is he making them much more dangerous (according to local officials on the ground)?
The Trump presentation at Ft Bragg was a disgraceful politicization of the active Armed Forces. It was wildly inappropriate, criticizing previous administration, and Generals while speaking to troops. Pure propaganda. The only loyalty of the Armed Forces is to the Constitution. Their focus is on protecting America from foreign enemies. Grave danger.
Troops cheering his lies and grievance... some truly scary stuff. Lets hope Oaths and the Constitution are still a part of critical thinking...Trump's attack on the American consumer is working - we are quickly becoming LESS SAFE financially as he dismantles the Consumer Financial Protection Board. Soon, most Americans will be spending a lot more money as the corrupt banks, credit card companies, and corporations resume their rip-off practices that the CFPB once put a stop to.
Understand, not all of those organizations rip off consumers, but enough do, it required the CFPB to stop, or at least make it more expensive, for the remainder screw you and me.
Why is Trump in such a hurry to repeat the Great 2008 Recession? Is he jealous that Bush gets credit for the worst economic downturn since the Republican Great Depression and wants the credit himself?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/business … esignationTrump apparently is now using the military to help arrest civilians. Where will it end - total martial law, I suspect.
National Guard 'providing protection' for law enforcement, DHS says as photos appear to show them on the scene of ICE operations
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/la-pro … p-06-11-25The image posted by ICE that is embedded deep within the link I provided shows, according my research, the National Guard breaking the law. The picture shows three soldiers in a civilian parking lot of some sort with their rifles at the ready facing outward protecting some ICE agents making an arrest. With no Insurrection Act in force, Title X prohibits such activity. Therefore, those soldiers, taking the conservative law and order position, or whoever ordered them to perform that illegal duty need to be arrested and prosecuted.
Of course, the Right will now immediately push back saying how dare I suggest enforcing American law against American soldiers. "Our laws are only to be used against illegal immigrants, after all. Our laws do not apply to everybody they will say"
Obviously, I don't actually suggest arresting those innocent men that Trump put in this position, after all, that could have been me being forced to obey illegal orders in days gone by, but I do want to point out the rank hypocrisy of the Right-wing side in this matter.
"Posing as a wartime leader, President Donald Trump is building a political case to use American troops not in a foreign conflict, but at home, to bolster his mass deportation sweeps." - Problem are: 1) he is "posing", 2) there is no war, and 3) he is a dictator, not a leader.
To me, Trump is clearly "building a political case" to declare martial law. The signs of it are compounding.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/politics … fort-braggRepublicans are out to screw legal immigrants, or as they like to call them "aliens". They WRONGLY think that millions of undocumented immigrants are taking advantage of our social support systems and that is simply misinformation, propaganda if you will.
For example, the House Speaker lies that there are 1.4 million illegal "aliens" on federal Medicaid. That is simply not true.
What is true is that the OBBBA will kick MILLIONS of legal immigrants and citizen children off of Medicaid and other support programs they lawfully have access to.
Disgusting.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/politics … immigrantsAs part of his Bold Agenda, Trump has decided it is a good thing to honor Slavery. This makes the KKK and White Supremacists happy. Can you imagine how Blacks feel about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/10/politics … tary-basesI think Trump has now earned his stripes to be called a full fledged dictator. He now meets all the criteria of a dictator.
He now has absolute power over the country. Congress and the courts are nowhere to be found. He is now ruling without any Constitutional limits. He is suppressing our civil liberties and ruling by decree. He wants to be in power for the rest of his life. And like all dictators, he is going to have a military parade to celebrate his birthday.
Congratulations, to dear leader. You have made it in less than six months of your second term.How does someone on this forum put it? 10000000000%
I have to warn you... when they come and tell you they are taking you to the train station to bring you to a "better place"... don't go!
*The cattle car, the principal mode of Nazi deportation, one of the most iconic symbols of the Holocaust.We finally agree on something. See you in that cattle car. Don't go in the showers if the ask you to go.
Let’s start with some important facts about Fort Bragg and the broader context. Fort Bragg was named in 1918, over a century ago, in honor of Confederate General Braxton Bragg. This was long before Donald Trump ever held office. If the name were truly so egregious, why did every administration, both Democratic and Republican, fail to change it until recent efforts?
Now, regarding June 14th, this date has deep historical significance as it marks the founding of the United States Army in 1775. Any military celebration or parade planned around this date is a recognition of our nation’s military heritage, not a personal glorification or dictator-style celebration. Military parades have been held occasionally in American history to honor the service and sacrifice of our troops, and are subject to congressional approval and logistical planning, not unilateral presidential decree.
As for the broader claim that Trump has become a “full-fledged dictator” with “absolute power” overrunning Congress and the courts, that simply isn’t true. The U.S. government is built on a system of checks and balances designed precisely to prevent any one branch or individual from wielding unchecked authority. Congress continues to pass laws and hold hearings, the courts remain independent and issue rulings, including many that go against the administration, and states maintain their own powers. Trump is bound by constitutional term limits, and any attempt to overstep those limits would face immediate and fierce institutional resistance.
The claim that civil liberties are being suppressed wholesale and that Trump is ruling by decree is an exaggeration without basis. While executive orders and policies can be controversial, they are subject to legal challenges and public scrutiny. Our democracy thrives on debate and dissent, and institutions are still very much active.
In short, labeling Trump a dictator ignores the realities of how the U.S. government functions and the historical facts behind these issues. It’s important to separate political rhetoric from fact and appreciate that America’s constitutional system remains strong and resilient.I hope you remember the Civil War was all about the South wanting to maintain slavery and people like Bragg was fully supportive of that. Why on earth to you want to honor a person who went to war to keep people enslaved?
To change the name of the fort back to Bragg is the same thing as hoping slavery comes back some day."To change the name of the fort back to Bragg is the same thing as hoping slavery comes back some day." ECO
That would be your sentiment- this is mine.
Yes, I am well acquainted with the Civil War and fully aware of the history surrounding it, and I emphasize the word history. I believe that 250 years ago, we embarked on a grand experiment to build a new nation, and we have been working at it ever since. Throughout that journey, I have witnessed both great mistakes and remarkable accomplishments, such as the abolition of slavery. I don’t believe history needs to be changed or rewritten. I believe in telling it as it was. We had a division among Americans that led to a great and painful war. Those who lost ultimately accepted the will of the democratic majority, and the stronger side prevailed.
It’s worth noting that many federal forts and buildings are still named after people who fought on the Southern side, such as Fort Bragg. If history were truly about honoring only the victors, those names wouldn’t exist. This shows that history is complex and nuanced; it reflects the entire story, not just one perspective. I don’t think any part of history should be altered because, in the end, the facts of history cannot be changed.
The name Fort Bragg will always signify that it was named after a man who fought on the losing side of the Civil War. General Braxton Bragg was a senior Confederate officer, and his association with the Confederacy is an undeniable part of his legacy. However, it is important to recognize that after the war, Bragg continued to serve his country in meaningful ways. He became a professor at the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning and Military Academy, where he helped educate a new generation of Americans. Although he fought for the South, his later life showed a dedication to rebuilding and strengthening the nation through education and leadership. This complexity makes him a significant figure in American history, not just as a soldier, but as someone who worked toward healing a divided country. Fort Bragg was not named until 1918, during World War I. Despite his Confederate ties, the naming reflected a broader practice at the time of honoring military figures from both sides of the Civil War, recognizing many for their later contributions and support of our democracy.
As you can see, our mindsets are different. I am open to the idea that a man can make mistakes in his lifetime, but still work to correct them and leave a positive legacy. In Bragg’s case, that legacy shows that he ultimately worked to make America a better place. To me, that is the kind of impact education can have. I look for the good, the bad can eat you alive."It’s worth noting that many federal forts and buildings are still named after people who fought on the Southern side, such as Fort Bragg." - And they should ALL be changed to people who oppose slavery, don't you think?
Military parades have never been held in America to honor a president, like Trump is wanting, or to honor itself. Frankly, the reasons Trump wants his parade have been rejected by Americans like forever. Why do we reject them?
1. Cultural and Political Traditions
Civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle of American democracy. Grandiose military parades are often associated with authoritarian regimes that use them for propaganda or power projection (e.g. Russia, North Korea, China - all places Trump admires).
Many Americans see frequent military parades as un-American or uncharacteristic of a republic founded in opposition to monarchy and militarism.
2. Military Values and Norms
The U.S. military emphasizes professionalism, humility, and mission-focus, not public spectacle.
Many commanders believe military resources should be directed toward readiness and defense—not display.
There’s also a tradition of honoring service through memorials, cemeteries, and veterans' benefits, rather than parades.
3. Cost (those who support this waste of money don't really care about the deficit or controlling costs)
Military parades are expensive. A proposed 2018 parade was estimated to cost $92 million, leading to its cancellation.
Funding and organizing such events means diverting personnel, equipment, and logistics from essential missions.
4. American Alternatives That said, Americans DO honor our military. They do it in the following ways:
- Veterans Day and Memorial Day observances
- Flyovers at sporting events
- Fleet Week and air shows
- Fourth of July celebrations with limited military presence
These events emphasize appreciation over intimidation.
5. Historical Exceptions
The U.S. has held military parades at key historical moments:
- End of World War I & II (e.g. 1946 NYC “Victory Parade”)
- Operation Desert Storm (1991 in D.C.)
- Inaugurations occasionally feature small military contingents
These are typically celebratory and exceptional, not routine.This year marks our 250th birthday as a nation, and I believe a parade would be a meaningful and powerful way to add to that celebration. It would honor our history, our military, and the enduring spirit of the American people.
I have to say your comment feels overly hyperbolic and assumes your view is the absolute, final truth on this matter. While you argue that military parades are un-American and only associated with authoritarian regimes, that’s a narrow interpretation that ignores the complexity of American history and patriotism. The U.S. has indeed held military parades at important moments to honor service and sacrifice, like after World War II and Desert Storm, which shows that military appreciation through public display is not unprecedented or un-American. To suggest that all displays of military pride are purely propaganda or power projection is unfair and dismissive of the genuine respect many Americans hold for their armed forces.
I will also add that I have a deep, abiding respect for our military. I think offering them a wonderful parade is a great gesture, an opportunity to publicly celebrate those who are serving, those who have served, and those who gave their lives.
I’ve come to realize that there are some citizens who hold a clear disdain for what this country has built. Thankfully, I believe they represent a small minority. In many ways, Trump's win served as a strong reminder that their views don’t reflect the majority, and how unfortunate that must feel for them.And — don’t we all have one? Or has the woke crowd outlawed that too?
He was certainly born on a day that stands out as one of the most patriotic in America’s history. I mean, born on the exact day our Army was created — go figureWe don't throw military parades to celebrate a president in America...
What, exactly, is "hyperbolic" about my preamble to all those facts.
June 14, 1775 is when the Continental Army was formed, not our modern nation.
Jun 14, 1778 is also when the Continental Congress, the one before this one, adopted the Stars and Stripes as our national flag.
Most importantly however, June 14, 1946 is Trump's birthday.
Let me point out again why America and Americans do not cotton to military parades like what Trump is wasting lots of money on:
"Civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle of American democracy. Grandiose military parades are often associated with authoritarian regimes that use them for propaganda or power projection (e.g. Russia, North Korea, China - all places Trump admires)."
This cultural restraint of America is a form of democratic humility. It sends a message that in America, the military serves the republic — not the other way around. The power of the U.S. military is undeniable, but its legitimacy is drawn from civilian authority, lawful purpose, and moral restraint, not from theatrical exhibition.
Attempts to inject militarism into national identity — as Donald Trump has admired and is now making happen — run counter to this tradition. They signal a disturbing shift from democratic symbolism toward autocratic aesthetics."Let me point out again why America and Americans do not cotton to military parades like what Trump is wasting lots of money on:" ECO
That statement is actually hyperbolic. I feel it’s important to remind you that you only speak for yourself, not for others. I know this might be hard to hear, but someone needs to say it: your views are your own, and you don’t have the right to speak on behalf of everyone else. Comments like that overlook the importance of individuality and can come across as inappropriate. I’m just being kind by letting you know this.
I won't respond to the rest of the comment, I respect that as your view. Mine differs. It is positive that we both had the opportunity to share our very opposite views.
“The U.S. government is built on a system of checks and balances designed precisely to prevent any one branch or individual from wielding unchecked authority.” That is absolutely correct—and it reflects the deliberate intent of the Founders. But the problem is clear: Donald Trump has shown, time and again, that he has no respect for this foundational principle.
To any objective observer, it is evident that Trump is intent on consolidating power in the executive branch, systematically undermining the role of Congress and seeking to bend the judiciary to his will. His actions echo the political model of autocrats like Vladimir Putin, where legislatures and courts serve not as independent institutions but as rubber stamps for the leader’s agenda.
Yes, as you note, the courts have thus far acted as a crucial check on Trump’s excesses. But it is equally true—and deeply concerning—that Trump continues to attack and discredit the judiciary, casting doubt on its legitimacy and pressuring judges who rule against him. These are not the actions of a man who respects constitutional boundaries—they are the tactics of someone trying to dismantle them.Your argument leans heavily on interpretation and exaggeration, not on verifiable facts. While it’s true the U.S. system of checks and balances is meant to prevent any one branch or individual from gaining unchecked authority, there’s no evidence Trump has dismantled or bypassed that system. Courts have successfully blocked or delayed his policies on immigration, social media, and more, proving they remain effective and independent. Congress has also conducted investigations and impeached him twice, demonstrating powerful legislative oversight.
What flies in the face of your claim is today’s federal ruling: a judge declined Governor Newsom’s emergency request to block Trump’s deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. That decision, based on existing law, makes clear the judiciary, not the executive, gets to decide these issues, even when cases may escalate to the Supreme Court. This isn’t authoritarianism, it’s exactly how checks and balances work, using lawful frameworks and court involvement.
Yes, presidents often criticize court rulings, Obama did so after Citizens United, Biden after Dobbs, Clinton during Starr. Trump’s blunt criticisms are unorthodox, but not without precedent. Moreover, calling him an autocrat akin to Putin ignores the fact that he doubled down, held press conferences, attended hearings, and actively defended his actions in court. That’s not the behavior of a dictator; it’s the behavior of someone working within a democratic system under constant scrutiny.
In short, Trump’s presidency, including today’s court-affirmed deployment, is not a dismantling of our constitutional order, but an engagement with it. He’s advancing his agenda through lawful and adjudicated means, even when it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. I must also say he does oy with good speed."Court affirmed deployment"? The case is being heard today though? That battle has barely begun
A federal judge declined Newsom's request for an immediate temporary restraining order, I Believe on monday? But t he judge reportedly wanted to give the administration a chance to defend its decision before issuing an emergency ruling...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cou … -122760337Yes, she left out that bit of context from her declarative and misleading statement.
"Your argument leans heavily on interpretation and exaggeration, not on verifiable facts. " - I really ask you to open your eyes, the facts are right in front of you, very easy to see. There is no longer any room for interpretation and I am certainly not exaggerating, and neither is PeoplePower.
But, OK, when I get home from work tonight, I will post you a very long list of facts that should convince even the most hard core Trump who still has a slightly open mind that we have a dictator on our hands.I shared my view in detail, and I have nothing more to add. It's clear I see issues much differently than PeoplePower and you. I am very pleased with the job President Trump is doing. I feel, once again, he is one of the best presidents in my lifetime regarding his job performance.
The assertion that concerns over Trump’s authoritarian tendencies are “an exaggeration without basis” ignores a growing body of actions and rhetoric that suggest a very real erosion of civil liberties and democratic norms under his leadership.
First, Trump has repeatedly threatened to use executive power to punish dissent, including suggesting the deployment of the military against protestors and advocating for harsher penalties against political opponents and journalists. These are not hypothetical statements—he has attempted to use federal forces to disperse lawful protests (e.g., Lafayette Square, 2020), and his allies have outlined plans to invoke the Insurrection Act preemptively.
Second, Trump’s open hostility toward the judiciary and the press—pillars of any functioning democracy—is not just rhetoric. He has labeled judges who rule against him as illegitimate, called for criminal investigations into journalists, and championed lawsuits aimed at silencing media outlets. These efforts may not amount to “rule by decree” in the formal sense, but they unmistakably reflect a desire to suppress critical voices and concentrate power.
Third, Trump's plans for a second term—outlined by his allies in Project 2025 and similar initiatives—include proposals to purge the civil service, consolidate power within the executive, and eliminate independence from institutions like the DOJ. This is not business as usual. It’s a blueprint for circumventing checks and balances.
So while he may not have formally suspended the Constitution or ruled unilaterally in every instance, the pattern is unmistakable: Trump has consistently tested the boundaries of executive authority, disregarded democratic norms, and shown contempt for institutional independence. That is more than enough to justify serious concern—not dismissal.Your argument relies heavily on a narrative built more on fear than facts. Let’s walk through this with some common sense and a closer look at reality. Our mindsets clash --- you rely mainly on emotions, I on facts.
The idea that Trump has eroded civil liberties simply doesn’t hold when you consider the robust and functioning opposition he faced at every level of government. During his presidency, the media was freer and more vocal than ever, relentlessly critical, not silenced. Journalists published books, networks aired hostile coverage daily, and late-night TV mocked him with impunity. That’s not the environment of an authoritarian state; that’s free speech flourishing. If Trump truly had authoritarian control, none of that would have happened, and yet it did, constantly.
While Trump did criticize judges and the press, so have many presidents before him. Obama rebuked the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. Biden labeled the Dobbs decision “not normal.” Clinton called the Starr investigation a partisan witch hunt. Criticism of institutions is not dismantling them; it’s using one’s own free speech. Courts repeatedly ruled against Trump, on DACA, the census, and social media policies, proving they remained strong and independent.
Regarding Lafayette Square, multiple investigations, including one by the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General, concluded that the clearing of protesters was not done for a Trump photo-op, but to install fencing scheduled well in advance. That event has been repeatedly misrepresented as evidence of authoritarianism, but the facts contradict that narrative.
As for “Project 2025” and similar speculation, let’s be clear: ideas floated by think tanks or allies are not the same as formal policy or enacted law. Every administration considers reshaping bureaucracies. Obama implemented massive changes in health care and education through executive agencies. Biden has done the same on climate and immigration. Trump proposing structural reform, subject to the courts and Congress, is not authoritarian. It’s politics as usual in a system designed to allow (and constrain) such attempts.
In my view, today’s legal decisions, including the federal court siding with Trump over Newsom on the National Guard issue, show that the judicial branch is still operating independently and within the framework of our Constitution. That’s a sign the system is working, not unraveling, as you seem to feel.
So, no concerns about authoritarianism under Trump are not grounded in his actual record, but in political hyperbole. He has pushed boundaries, like every strong-willed president, but within the framework of law, oversight, and public accountability. Let’s not confuse policy disagreement or personal style with a collapse of democracy."In my view, today’s legal decisions, including the federal court siding with Trump over Newsom on the National Guard issue, show that the judicial branch is still operating independently and within the framework of our Constitution."
What decision? There's been no decision made today as far as I can see?
Yeah, this administration want to extol members of the treasonous Confederacy, while removing honorable mention to men like Colin Powell as being woke?
America’s constitutional system Strong and resilient? are you serious, it has never been in a greater dangerHow about the murdered Harvey Milk from San Francisco, whose name the homophobic Hegseth took off the ship.
You have made good points as to the obvious directions these events are pointing to, only cadavers can truly ignore the writing on the wall.
Their methods and deliberation are the very definition of bias and bigotry Their color or sexual orientation is more important than their contributions to society? Hitler had books written by Jews burned whether the material had merit or not, is this not much of the same?
"America’s constitutional system Strong and resilient? are you serious, it has never been in a greater danger" Cred
I have offered several lengthy comments regarding the comment you responded to and can’t really add anything new. But I will ask, why do you feel our Constitutional system is in danger? Because from my perspective, I don’t think I have ever witnessed it working as well as it is presently. In fact, I feel strongly about this because I see how Trump is actively using the existing systems—the courts, Congress, and executive powers, to pursue the agenda he promised the people. He respects the legal process enough to win cases in court, as we saw recently with the ruling against Newsom’s challenge about the National Guard deployment. This shows the system is functioning, with checks and balances in place. Yet Trump is pushing hard within those boundaries to achieve his goals, not by bypassing or dismantling the Constitution, but by engaging it fully, even if it means decisions eventually go to the Supreme Court. To me, this is a sign of a robust constitutional system, not a weakening one. Is Congress crippled? Yes, but they have been for decades. I have never witnessed a president more scrutinized and held to the mark."Yet Trump is pushing hard within those boundaries to achieve his goals, not by bypassing or dismantling the Constitution, but by engaging it fully, even if it means decisions eventually go to the Supreme Court.
How does this fit within the framework of the Constitution? How specifically is this not bypassing the Constitution?
"If there’s any protester that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force," Trump said. "I haven’t even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force."
https://x.com/mjfree/status/1932547850459582836
Everything that you describe in your reply is based on a textbook democracy. In my view, Trump and his administration and their actions are far from a textbook democracy.
I read two books about Trump. His Art of the Deal, which he didn't write and his nieces book about him and his family life. She is also a clinical psychologist. I would love to tell you about his early life and the people who influenced his beliefs and values. But it would take several chapters.
Suffice it to say, that's why I think he is a master con-artist who suffers from deep narcissism and has the need to be loved and adored, It should be noted that when he is not, he becomes very angry and will seek revenge. He calls it counter punching. Oh, he thinks he doesn't lie, he calls it Truthful Hyperbole.
I know you like facts, context, and sources. I found the following which gives both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to Trump and company:
.
Trump's Parade
The parade will feature 6,700 soldiers, 150 military vehicles, and 50 aircraft, including tanks, helicopters, and parachute demonstrations. Trump has long admired military parades, particularly after witnessing France’s Bastille Day celebration in 2017, and has sought to organize a similar display in the U.S. for years.
Critics, including some Republican lawmakers, have expressed concerns that the parade resembles displays of military power seen in authoritarian regimes. Others argue that it is a celebration of American strength and history. The event is expected to cost between $25 million and $45 million, with the Army promising to cover any damage to city streets caused by heavy military equipment.
Rule by Decree
Donald Trump has issued a significant number of executive orders since returning to office, leading some critics to argue that he is attempting to rule by decree. Executive orders allow a president to direct federal agencies without needing approval from Congress, but they must still comply with existing laws and the Constitution.
Some of Trump's recent orders have raised concerns about government oversight and checks and balances. For example, one executive order states that only Trump and his attorney general can interpret laws for government agencies, including independent bodies like the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This has sparked debate over whether the White House is overstepping its authority.
While executive orders are a normal part of presidential power, critics argue that Trump is using them in ways that challenge democratic norms. Supporters, however, see them as a way to cut through bureaucracy and implement policies efficiently
Trump the Dictator
The question of whether Donald Trump is a dictator is a matter of debate and perspective. Some critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, have accused Trump of exhibiting authoritarian tendencies, particularly in his deployment of the National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles. Others, such as Fox News host Will Cain, argue that concerns about Trump being a dictator are exaggerated and driven by political opposition.
Polling data suggests that a significant portion of Americans view Trump as a "dangerous dictator," with a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute finding that 52% of respondents believe he poses a threat to democracy. However, his supporters often see him as a strong leader who should be given the power to restore America's greatness.
Ultimately, whether Trump is considered a dictator depends on one's interpretation of his actions and rhetoric. Some view his governance style as authoritarian, while others see it as decisive leadership/As a conservative, I respectfully but firmly dispute your characterization of President Trump and the conclusions you've drawn from highly partisan sources. First, let’s be honest about “textbook democracy.” America is not a pure democracy; it’s a constitutional republic. That means we elect representatives and have a system of checks and balances designed to limit overreach, not cater to popularity contests or media narratives. Trump operated within this framework, often more transparently than past administrations. For example, his policies, whether on the border, foreign relations, or taxes, were openly debated and passed through the appropriate legal channels.
Regarding the books you cited, both are subjective. The Art of the Deal was ghostwritten, like most political memoirs, and Mary Trump’s book is an openly hostile portrayal from a disgruntled family member with a financial and political motive. Her psychological analysis should be taken with a grain of salt; no reputable psychologist would diagnose a person they’ve never clinically evaluated, especially a family member, without bias. That’s not a fact-based critique; it’s a personal attack masquerading as science.
As for the so-called “military parade” being authoritarian, how is honoring our troops authoritarian? France, a liberal democracy, has done this for centuries. Celebrating our armed forces doesn’t make someone a dictator; it shows respect for the men and women who defend our freedom. What many critics ignore is that this event marks a very important milestone, the 250th birthday of our nation. In my view, it saddens me that some don’t see this as just a celebration, a milestone worth honoring regardless of politics. I’m with Trump on this: it’s troubling that we have citizens among us who seem to hate this country, who reflexively view any patriotic display as threatening or authoritarian. That mindset is what truly erodes unity, not a parade honoring those who sacrifice for our nation. I do feel this is a small minority. However, these could be very dangerous people.
Now, about executive orders: every president uses them. Obama issued 276; Biden, over 100 in his first year alone. The left only calls it “ruling by decree” when it’s someone they disagree with. When Biden bypasses Congress on student loan forgiveness, it’s called compassion. When Trump uses executive authority to secure the border or deregulate bloated bureaucracy, it’s called authoritarianism? That double standard undermines real dialogue.
Lastly, polls about Trump being “a dangerous dictator” reflect media-driven fearmongering, not reality. If Trump were a true dictator, CNN wouldn’t have spent four years openly attacking him without consequences. Political opponents wouldn’t be free to call him names in public. In authoritarian regimes, dissent is silenced. Under Trump, it thrived; just scroll through social media or turn on late-night TV.
You don’t have to like his tone or style, but to say Trump’s leadership is anti-democratic while ignoring actual constitutional abuses from other administrations is not common sense, it’s selective outrage.Saying that protest will be met with force is not a hallmark of a dictator? Really?
Considering that NOT saying (and doing it) by cities across the nation has resulted in months of rioting, do you want to maintain that stance?
Months of rioting? I realize that is what you call peaceful protests, of which 93% to 97% were!!!
Where were the democrats when George Bush held a military parade, much larger in scale, in 1991? Why didn't that upset them?
Good point. I’m genuinely excited and proud to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, I see it as a major milestone, and I’m really looking forward to the parade. Overall, I’m feeling very upbeat about what’s happening lately. Not just on immigration, but also the encouraging news about a potential tariff deal, Trump’s efforts to bring peace to ongoing conflicts, and his hard push to secure a new nuclear agreement with Iran. I also have to say I’m pleased with his nonstop drive to attract investment and strengthen the economy, the latest stats are looking a bit better, and that gives me real hope. Compared to all that, the protests honestly come off as pretty silly, to put it mildly. I mean, the Democrats are the ones wearing all the blame for the riots we are seeing. Hopefully they keep on the same path...
A gulf war victory celebration? I think what we're talking about here is a tribute to dear leaders birth....
Sighhhh. Everyone knows that the parade was held to celebrate the military success of the U.S.-led coalition in the Gulf War, That is one of the acceptable reasons for spending money on a military parade. It also wasn't Bush's birthday.
Yes, it also wasn't the birthday of the US Army Or Flag day.
What's your point?
It the 250th anniversary of the creation of the US Army.
As a former US Army officer I think this is a good idea. I'm proud of the long history and traditions of the US Army I served in.
I'm glad to have a military parade and celebration. The US Army deserves this recognition. There is a good chance I and some other former members of the US Army will attend.
I don't see the problem.Here is the information about the parade from the Veterans Administration.
"On June 14, the United States Army is commemorating 250 years of serving and defending the American people. In honor of this historic day, Veterans and the public in the National Capital Region are invited to attend the free festival and parade. A livestream broadcast will also be available for Americans across the nation to join in commemorating the occasion.
The U.S. Army is hosting events throughout the month of June in honor of its founding on June 14, 1775. The celebration will culminate with the national birthday celebration on June 14 in Washington, D.C.
The celebration will be held on the National Mall and will feature a wreath laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, live music, parade, fireworks and appearances by senior military leaders and Veterans.
At 2:50 p.m. ET on June 14, citizens across the country are encouraged to participate in a national moment of recognition to pause and reflect on the Army’s legacy."
https://news.va.gov/140639/veterans-cel … =11JUN2025So, it's the army's birthday and Trump's birthday celebration all in one but what about the upcoming naval birthday? Are they getting a parade of recognition also? Or nah
I hope the broadcast does not interrupt normal Saturday broadcasting or I will be cussing up a storm. Don't want to miss my sports. Besides, I celebrate the U.S. Marine Corps Birthday. The USMC will be 250 years old on Nov 10th. A month before that on Oct 13th the Navy will be 250 years old. Does anyone see a pattern? Like you said will there be more parades to come? If 250 years is what is significant there should be two more parades this year.
Just when you thought your tax dollars couldn't be spent in a more creatively useless way, Donald Trump is throwing himself a $45 million military parade—because nothing says “celebrating democracy” like flattening roads with tanks on your own birthday.
Set for June 14 (conveniently, Trump's 79th), the parade is billed as a tribute to the Army’s 250th anniversary, but it’s really more of a vanity project with the conspicuous aura of a wannabe-dictator convention.
Along with thousands of troops and armored vehicles, it promises a $16 million pothole bonanza for Washington, D.C., because what’s a celebration without a little urban destruction (just ask Los Angeles and the Capitol on Jan, 6)
By substack.But those aren't Trump's birthdays, so I doubt anything will happen.
It is also Flag Day. But, most importantly to Trump, is that it his birthday.
But will we be reflecting on the legacy of the Navy? The Marines? Or are we just reflecting this Saturday because it is Trump's birthday?
Did you read what was issued by the VA? Yeah, back in the 1700s they started the US Army on a date that was known to be the birthday of a future president.
Geesh
I don't know nor do I care what happens with the Navy and Marines. Oh, by the way, the Marines are part of the Navy.
I was in the US Army, we deserve this parade, I don't care what the whinny left thinks about it.On June 14, the United States Army is commemorating 250 years of serving and defending the American people....
"On June 14, the United States Army is commemorating 250 years of serving and defending the American people...."
Exactly!
I was served in the US Army as did my father, my sister, uncles, and cousins. At this time there are 3 nephews and a niece serving in the US Army.
So, I am proud to have served in the Army.
I don't get the left. Can't give your TDS up for a single day and celebrate a branch of the military that has done so much for our country.
Anybody who has served in the US Army, and especially in a war zone, knows the tremendous sacrifices that are made by the people who put on the uniform and do the job.
So, we get a parade and it lands on President Donald Trump's birthday and flag day. So what?
The left can't, for one day, stop being political and be proud Americans. I don't think it's possible. I think the TDS on the left is overwhelming.
It's a lousy shame.
Yes, then why aren't most Republican congressmen and women attending? Almost all of them have headed out of town to home sweet home.
Many may be reflecting on the legacy of our nation's progress. 250 years of strength of conviction and sovereignty. 250 years of yada, yada, yada 'patriotic' stuff.
As a guess, maybe it will be the first reflection (because they will surely also have those mentioned above) of a minority of Trump MAGA supporters—maybe half of his 35% core ???
On the flipside, that it will be the first reflection for almost all (maybe 85-90%??) of political Liberals feels like a sure bet.
GA
I didn't figure you would. But as a Retired U.S. Army officer and Vietnam Vet, I am proud of our long history and traditions of the U.S. Army I served in and retired from.
That said, I totally understand and agree that democracies shouldn't idolize its military like Trump wants. It is just another of his steps to authoritarianism. And this is why our founding fathers did not want or approve of standing armies.
George Washington Favored Modesty over Military Display - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … hatgpt.com
Classical Republican Ideals: Civic Virtue > Military Power - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical … hatgpt.com
Military Leaders and Veterans Express Concern - https://time.com/5137317/donald-trump-m … hatgpt.com
I am one of those Military Leaders and Veterans referred to in that article.'That said, I totally understand and agree that democracies shouldn't idolize its military like Trump wants. '
Huh?
We have a parade to celebrate the US Army's 250th birthday and all of a sudden President Donald Trump wants Americans to idolize the military?
Maybe you're getting the word "idolize" confused with respect.
That makes NO sense at all.
It's a military parade. It's been done before. It will be done again
TDS knows no boundaries.Clearly you don't have the same standards as George Washington when it comes to showing off the military like any good authoritarian does.
"It's been done before" - SO, what war victory is Trump celebrating? When was the last time a military parade was put on for this purpose (forget for the moment he is doing this for himself). I'll tell you, never!
The closest might by JFK's inaugural parade in 1961. But here is the difference:
Aspect JFK (1961) Trump (2025)
Occasion: Inauguration Birthday / Display of Power
Military Focus:Honor guards, bands Tanks, troops, flyovers
Symbolism: Civic tradition, unity Nationalist display, strongman image
Public Reaction: Widely accepted Deeply polarizing
Historical Context: Cold War patriotism Militarization amid domestic unrest mainly caused by TrumpTDS simply means we understand the existential danger Trump poses, e.g.,
TDS - Trump Destroys Society
TDS - The Donald Show
TDS - Truth Doesn't Stick (with him)
TDS - Trump Defense Syndrome
TDS - Totally Devoted to Self.
That said, I totally understand and agree that democracies shouldn't idolize its military like Trump wants. It is just another of his steps to authoritarianism. And this is why our founding fathers did not want or approve of standing armies.
I think you're wrong. Its not about "idolize its military", its about idolizing Trump. He couldnt care less about them.There is certainly that as well and probably foremost. (I'll save myself by saying Trump thinks of himself as the military, lol).
Did you see Marines are detaining American citizens now in LA? (not to blame the poor Marine caught in the middle of Trump's war on America)
Hey, Credence, Willowarbor, IslandBites, PeoplePower, don't you miss the good ole' days under Clinton, Obama, and Biden when America, domestically, wasn't in a state of perpetual crisis caused by the President?
Those on the Right might try to point to the FBI's response to another popular Right-Wing cult of the day in Waco, TX, or the Right-Wing bombing in Oklahoma City, or the Columbine School Massacre. Maybe they will bring up the only issue actually caused by Clinton, his affair with Monica Lewinski. That was it in eight, relatively peaceful years.
For Obama, they can only point to the Ferguson, MO unrest after a White cop unnecessarily killed a Black boy. That was it in eight more relatively peaceful years.
Let's see, Biden. Ah yes, there was Trump's insurrection on Jan 6. and the Pandemic-caused inflation.
Of course, there is the admittedly big smear on Biden's record. After Trump gave away the farm to the Taliban and set up an unrealistic withdrawal date, Biden didn't reverse course and tried to finish Trump's plan. We all know how that turned out.
Then there is, in my opinion, the made-up border crises. Sure, way too many migrants crossed the border and strained local resources. But Republicans made it so much worse than it needed to be by opposing, for political reasons, fixes Biden tried to put in place, while at the same time reversing Trump's inhumane policies.
But the biggest crisis of all that Biden caused is running for president when he shouldn't have and letting Trump back into the oval office.
Compare that to the daily crises we say in Trump's first term and now this one.We bounce from one crisis or chaotic situation to the next. Many of them manufactured to distract m. The chaos is working to some degree. Trump needed to redirect our attention away from his spat with Musk, the Epstein file, the threat he is posing to the economy and the national debt. The rampant self enrichment through his meme coin. He’s simply falling back on his go to outrage generator, IMMIGRATION.
Compared to this madness, I miss the relatively good old days even under Ronald Reagan. He was bad enough, but could not hold a candle to what is happening now.
You can count on the Right to spin it, to win it.
Trump is the danger and he may very well affect the very unraveling of this Republic.
We might just revert back to the old days of “stagflation” under his watch, that will give an opening for Democrats to get rid of him.
You know, to be honest, the so called liberal media may not be as liberal as the Right claims it is. If they were doing their job they would have been identifying Trump for his unprecedented incursion into American politics instead of this abomination being a mere aberration from just business as usual. He would have been out on his “ass” last summer. After all, who controls the press? Jeff Bezos is already kissing Trumps arse just to insure that he avoids his wrath. Rich guys already own the media, they are timid and are not going to bite the hand that feeds them which allows them to survive. The Left is fooled into believing that the media are their supporters.
I think I finally figured Trump out. At 78, he doesn't have much longer to live, so he wants to take the whole world with him.
Trump to revoke Biden’s climate rule on power plants
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/1 … s-0039433638% of voters approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president, while 54% disapprove.
Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill:
53% oppose
27% support
Handling of immigration:
54% disapprove
43% approve
The economy is getting..."
Worse: 51%
Better: 28%
Staying the same: 20%
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3924Gavin Newsom, the governor of California is telling us the obvious:
“What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment,” Newsom said in remarks released Tuesday evening. “Do not give into him.”
“If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant – based only on suspicion or skin color – then none of us are safe. Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there,” Newsom said, reiterating accusations that Trump officials instigated and inflamed what started as peaceful protests, though there have been skirmishes and occasional violence that Newsom and others have condemned.
“This is about all of us. This is about you,” he said. “California may be first – but it clearly won’t end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.”
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, tells us another obvious fact: Trump “is clearly trying to scare his opposition into silence, and that is definitely one of the ways that democracies die: when people fear that they are going to face physical harm if they turn out for protests, it often causes people to stay home. That is a tried and true path for democracies to be converted into autocracies. Elections still happen, but the opposition can never amount to any kind of numbers because people fear they’ll get the shit kicked out of them if they show up,” Murphy told CNN.[/i - This is what Putin does everyday!
Rep Jamie Raskin knows the truth as well.[i]“I like the fact that when one of Trump’s henchmen threatened Newsom with arrest, he said, ‘Well, come and get me, here I am.’ We’re not going to be afraid of Donald Trump because we have the rule of law on our side. We’re standing up for the Constitution. The states are not the pawns of the federal government. The states have an independent constitutional and political existence,” said Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who taught constitutional law before being elected to the House. “Other governors should stand up for the rule of law and stand up for the rights of their people.”
With some looters also taking to the streets, Trump and his deputy chief of staff refer to it as an “insurrection,”. But when Trump calls his MAGA army to come to the Capitol to have a "Wild Time" his supporters, including some on this forum, call the resulting violent insurrection a "peaceful demonstration". How hypocritical.
This is what America is facing when a fake Christian like House Speaker says this: House Speaker Mike Johnson said he couldn’t speak to the legal argument about arresting Newsom, but “he ought to be tarred and feathered.” MY GOD, TARRED AND FEATHERED. That is where MAGA has gone.Gaven has made himself look foolish on the public stage.
"On Tuesday, June 10, 2025, a federal judge denied California Governor Gavin Newsom's request for an immediate temporary restraining order to block President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. The judge ruled that the President had properly invoked his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the federal government to federalize the National Guard without the Governor's consent in certain circumstances. The court emphasized that the President's judgment in such matters is entitled to the highest deference and is not subject to judicial second-guessing. The judge also noted that the President's actions were consistent with longstanding practice and the inherent protective power to provide for the safety of federal property and personnel.
This ruling underscores the strength and functionality of our constitutional system, where the judiciary upheld the President's authority as outlined by federal law. It demonstrates that the system of checks and balances is working as intended, with courts evaluating the legality of executive actions and making decisions based on established legal principles"This ruling underscores the strength and functionality of our constitutional system, where the judiciary upheld the President's authority as outlined by federal law".
Where is the ruling?
"We have laws… we can’t call in the National Guard unless we’re requested by a governor."
Who's looking a fool?
https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/1932210035284746358I have posted the legal act 4 times that offered Trump the right to call in the Guard. Not about to post it again... No one at this point legally is coming forth to dispute he had the legal right to use the act he did use. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … hatgpt.com
A federal judge on Tuesday night declined California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s request for an immediate temporary restraining order to restrict President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to quell ongoing anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, declined to intervene by 1 p.m. PDT on Tuesday and instead set a hearing to consider California’s motion for a temporary restraining order on Thursday.
The judge, who is the brother of retired liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said the federal government could submit its arguments by 11 a.m. PDT Wednesday. He gave California until 9 a.m. Thursday to submit a response to the court. has Newsom filed this morning due to deadline
As of the 9 a.m. PDT deadline today, California Governor Gavin Newsom has not filed a response to the federal court regarding the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. The court had previously instructed the federal government to submit its arguments by 11 a.m. PDT Wednesday, with California given until 9 a.m. PDT Thursday to respond. However, there have been no reports indicating that Governor Newsom has filed a response within this timeframe. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and the court is expected to consider the matter in a hearing scheduled for later today.
I am just following the facts.
Trump had the athutrity to call in the guard legally--- he did and posted an official memo on the issue.
Newsom offered up a lawsuit claiming Trump had no right to call in the guard without his cooperation
Newsom lost in a court of law
He could file a response, and as of 9 am, he had not.
PeoplePower has finally said the obvious, Trump has crossed the line into authoritarianism. I say the same thing. Who else reading this thinks Trump is close to becoming or has become a Dictator?
We appear to be already there. America is a blooming autocracy with a particularly unhinged dictator at the helm.
Sharlee, et al - do you support this tactic?
An undocumented immigrant that has been allowed to stay in America to seek asylum the legal way is called for a hearing in front of an administrative judge. The Trump gov't asks that it be dismissed, the judge agrees, often without hearing any evidence as to why. The purpose of this charade is to arrest the lawful immigrant.
In more detail and with sources.:
How It Works
1. Government lawyers request case dismissal: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys move to terminate deportation proceedings—ostensibly because the individual qualifies for "expedited removal" due to recent entry (< 2 years in the U.S.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrat … hatgpt.com
.
2. Immigration judge approves dismissal: The judge grants the request—sometimes without holding the merits of the asylum claim
ICE agents immediately arrest in courthouse hallways: Since the court no longer has jurisdiction, ICE moves in— arresting the individual just outside the courtroom as part of “expedited removal”
Where It's Happening: Documented in Houston, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, San Antonio, Miami, El Paso, and other cities, across at least 13 states and 19 jurisdictions .
Why This Is Controversial: Due process concerns: Immigrants are attending hearings, expecting fair review—and instead are swiftly deported
- Fear among asylum seekers: Legal advocates say the tactic chills court attendance, undermining the right to hearings
Judicial pushback: Some judges are refusing government motions to dismiss without proceeding through the full legal process - at least until Trump fires them.
Legal challenges: Critics argue this disgusting, unAmerican “bait-and-switch” undermines protections and due process under U.S. and international law
.
Conclusion
Yes, this is happening—: it's supported by executive orders and confirmed in real cases across many jurisdictions.
Judges are being complicit, whether knowingly or under pressure, by granting dismissals that immediately trigger expedited arrests.
Legal advocates are working to push back, and lawsuits and judicial resistance are emerging.
THE SAME decrepit tactic is being used when lawful immigrants show up at meetings as they seek citizenship as well.- https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-53 … hatgpt.com
It has really become embarrassing to be a Trump American.ICE is grabbing people when they show up for court, and when they come in for scheduled check ins. They are grabbing people who are following the rules. Trump is deporting every brown person he can find. Some are legal citizens.
It’s not even about protests now. They’re sending in the guard to back up their ice agents so that they can go detain and deport people without due process...all to meet quotas."An undocumented immigrant that has been allowed to stay in America to seek asylum the legal way is called for a hearing in front of an administrative judge. The Trump gov't asks that it be dismissed, the judge agrees, often without hearing any evidence as to why. The purpose of this charade is to arrest the lawful immigrant." ECO
I would need facts on the case. Was the person here legally? What were the circumstances under which the person was picked up and detained? Were they denied due process? Did ICE break any standing law?
I have made it clear that I support Trump's immigration agenda. I fully approve of the deportations of anyone who is here illegally, and our current laws should be followed. If ICE is breaking laws, I am unaware of it. I don't abide by fluff. I have followed all the courts that have offered. I feel the courts are handling any cases that might have been handled poorly or possibly broken the law. But as of yet, I have not been aware of any problems that concerned me.
ICE has a hard job. The tactics do not concern me. Migrants have been warned to leave if here illegally, even offered an invitation back if they do it the legal way.This is just one article detailing what's happened, I don't want to flood The forum but I can if need be
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/10/ … -portland/You need not flood the forum--- "Attorneys for the federal government have argued asylum seekers being arrested at court were wrongfully admitted into the United States and still have the chance of gaining asylum if it’s determined they have a “credible fear” of being returned to their home countries."
It’s clear that everyone involved will have the opportunity to present their case in court. So I’m not sure where you're seeing an issue of unfairness. Your own article acknowledges this.
"Following their arrests Tuesday, both quickly filed petitions and secured federal court orders that block their removal from Oregon. It appears in these cases, the orders came before ICE had removed them from the state."
It appears ICE is doing their job, and by the laws we have on the books. I can understand that some feel very emotional about the deportations, and I think that is a separate issue.Dont know if this was posted before.
Trump admin tells immigration judges to dismiss cases in tactic to speed up arrests
The judges, who work for the executive branch, have been instructed to grant dismissals quickly; ICE has been arresting people after their cases are dismissed.
A recent memo to immigration judges obtained by NBC News provides fresh insight into how the Trump administration is pulling off a new tactic — dismissing pending immigration cases, then immediately moving to arrest the immigrants — that is part of its bid to quickly increase the number of immigrants it is detaining.
In the memo, the Justice Department instructs immigration judges, who report to the executive branch and are not part of the independent judiciary, to allow Department of Homeland Security lawyers to make motions to dismiss orally and then move quickly to grant those dismissals, rather than allow immigrants the 10-day response time that had been typical.
“Oral Decisions must be completed within the same hearing slot on the day testimony and arguments are concluded,” says the memo, which is dated May 30. It also tells the judges that “[n]o additional documentation or briefing is required” to grant the dismissals.
Once their cases are dismissed, the immigrants in question may be put in expedited removal proceedings, which means they can be deported without a chance to make their cases for asylum before immigration judges. The memo notes that people in expedited removal proceedings “are subject to mandatory detention” and can be taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which falls under DHS.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation … rcna212138Yep! Your citation does a good job at explaining the issue. Maga folks aren't getting the gist of this.
Seriously, when are Trump supporters going to get tired of being conned and lied to by Trump?
Remember when he promised to end the war in Ukraine? NADA. The only thing he has to show for his efforts is that Putin does this much better than he does. As a result - Trump appears ready to feed Ukraine, it democracy, then Eastern Europe and their democracies to his master in Russia.
Where are those "vaunted TRADE DEALS" he promised to make in response to his ill-fated TRADE WAR on the world? He doesn't have a single one completed, only two "frameworks" that seem to be going nowhere fast.
What we all have seen is like any bully, he talks tough and then backs down and reverses course when opposition is met. Trump has the nickname TACO for a reason you know.
And now it looks like he might bring democracy down in America sooner than he will make it happen in Ukraine. How sad is that.The tariff for goods imported from China will remain at 55%.... How on Earth is that a deal for American consumers??
Alan Baer, CEO of logistics firm OL USA, said the existing 55% tariff on Chinese goods will put hundreds, if not thousands, of companies and ultimately jobs at risk. "Very few firms have the pricing power to absorb the tariffs or raise prices to offset the impact," Baer said. "Ultimately, the consumer pays."
This is just sheer stupidity. All too attempt to offset the cost of the tax cuts...
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/11/trumps- … emain.htmlTrump is actively addressing all the issues you mentioned. If anything, he may underestimate how difficult these tasks are. It’s important to consider all sides of the coin; much of what Trump is trying to fix actually originated during Biden’s term.
It's very hard to understand your mindset... You never have facts just run on unfettered emotion.90 deals in 90 days? It's more like 90 day pause after pause after pause....
And all the naysayers expect (or say they expect) something that normally takes years to be done in a month. When it's not, well, Trump is a fool.
The fool is the person that thinks it can be done in a month instead of two years. How long did we work on NAFTA? 10 years?The fool is the one that tells everyone so as to win an election that he can do it. So, he should not have said it in the first place.
That would be every politician in the last 100 (1,000:) years, right?
I seem to recall Obama saying he would enact the ACA...right up until elected whereupon he immediately said he would need another four years. Could you be so gullible as to think he didn't lie intentionally to get more votes?
No surprise here, Trump's use of military against American civilians has been long in the making. He just had to create the proper pretext for this latest assault on American society.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/12/politics … onal-guardU.S. Wholesale Inflation increased a bit (some here would say skyrocketed, but I won't) in June's report. It increased 0.1% to 2.6%, in line with analyst's expectations.
The wholesale index fell in April as a result of a "squeeze on margins" from Trump's tariffs, so May was a significant reversal as wholesalers try to recover their tariff losses.
The wholesale inflation index is a leading indicator of where the retail CPI will go in the near future.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/12/economy/ … lation-mayAll is headed in the right direction... I would think you would back away from the economy bit. You have been wrong, as well as some of the economists touting disaster.
Goldman Sachs reduced its 12-month recession probability from 35% to 30%, citing improved trade policy stability—especially the recently eased tensions with China—and normalization in financial conditions. They also raised their U.S. GDP growth forecast to 1.25% annually
Consumer sentiment is improving: The NY Federal Reserve reports one-year inflation expectations fell from 3.6% to 3.2%, helping boost stock markets and giving sentiment indicators a lift
https://www.businessinsider.com/inflati … hatgpt.com
Labor market strength remains evident—May saw 139,000 new jobs, and unemployment stayed steady around 4–4.2%, further reinforcing investor confidence https://www.businessinsider.com/investo … hatgpt.com
Lots of good news---
Trump is on a roll --- looks like we could have a new trade deal with China --- keeping my fingers crossed.
I am feeling sort of like I did in Trump's first term.Is this Biden's economy though? I mean can you name any one piece of legislation or act or just absolutely anything that he has accomplished in these few months besides increasing his wealth by 3 billion that contributes to the current economy whatsoever? Or is the economy really just that robust and is withstanding his clumsy maneuvers particularly with tariffs?
There aren't any economists who believe that the tariff chaos has shown up yet...
Trump can revoke national monument designations, Justice Department says
Of course they did, the DOI, formerly known as the DOJ, is firmly in Putin's, er Trump's pocket.
Fortunately, future sane presidents can undo what this crazy one does in this area. Also, the Courts may disagree.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/politics … departmentTune in folks, must see TV... They've dragged out Comer to question three Democratic governors and he's already drowning.... Pure comic relief
{b}"Hegseth won’t commit to obeying courts on Marines in Los Angeles"[/b]
"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth refused to say whether he would follow the courts if they ruled against President Donald Trump’s deployment of active-duty Marines to Los Angeles.
The Pentagon chief repeatedly deflected when asked Thursday at a House Armed Services Committee hearing whether he would respect a federal district or Supreme Court decision on the issue.
“What I can say is we should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,” Hegseth said."
When asked a YES or NO question, that answer is clearly a NO.
Tell me again how that isn't a clear signal we now live under a dictator? What Hegseth effectively said when he didn't answer YES is the Supreme Court can take their decision and shove it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/1 … s-00402794The court already ruled on the case Newsom filed --- he lost.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled today that Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency request for a restraining order was denied, meaning the deployment of nearly 4,000 federalized National Guard soldiers and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles will proceed while the case moves forward .
Judge Breyer emphasized that no immediate restrictions will be placed on the federal forces, and instead scheduled a full hearing for Thursday in San Francisco. He set clear deadlines: the Justice Department must submit its detailed response by 11 a.m. PDT Wednesday, and California must respond by 9 a.m. PDT Thursday
Newsom's filing was frivolous. Trump was within his rights
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … hatgpt.com
I bet I am going to be told that Trump shouldn't be sanctioned for obstructing justice.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawyers ask judge to sanction Trump administration
"“The Government did virtually nothing,” they said in a court filing late Wednesday night.
“Nearly sixty days, ten orders, three depositions, three discovery disputes, three motions for stay, two hearings, a week-long stay, and a failed appeal later, the Plaintiffs still have seen no evidence to suggest that the Defendants took any steps, much less ‘all available steps,’ to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States ‘as soon as possible’ so that his case could be handled as it would have been had he not been unlawfully deported,” Abrego Garcia’s attorneys wrote.
And other judges who were stiffed-armed by Trump are considering the same thing - and rightly so.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/12/politics … on-request"I bet I am going to be told that Trump shouldn't be sanctioned for obstructing justice."
"Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawyers ask judge to sanction Trump administration" ECO
It’s a bit curious that the comment jumps to Trump personally being sanctioned, as if that's the central issue. Legally speaking, sanctions are typically directed at attorneys, agencies, or parties involved in a case for misconduct within the court process, not necessarily individuals like Trump personally, unless he is directly involved in the specific legal action and has violated a court order or engaged in bad-faith conduct.
In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, it appears the request is for sanctions against the Trump administration, likely aimed at the Department of Homeland Security or DOJ attorneys under that administration, if they are accused of misconduct in that case. That’s very different from saying Trump himself should be sanctioned.
So no, you’re not “going to be told” Trump should be sanctioned for obstructing justice, unless there's a direct legal basis tied to him specifically in a given case. Jumping to that conclusion actually misses how sanctions work procedurally and legally.
Actually, while there’s been a lot of noise about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s removal, the facts show a more complex picture. After admittedly mistakenly sending him to El Salvador, the Trump administration, through the DOJ, has been working to facilitate his return, and the President of El Salvador has agreed to cooperate.
What’s often left out is that Garcia is now facing a serious federal indictment handed down by a grand jury. The charges include human trafficking-related crimes, specifically transporting undocumented immigrants, which prosecutors say was part of a decade-long smuggling operation. He’s also charged with visa fraud, unlawful reentry, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, false statements to federal officers, and transporting firearms and narcotics across state lines. These are not minor offenses; they're significant federal crimes with national security and public safety implications.
Despite the severity of the charges, Garcia will be afforded full due process. He will have the opportunity to defend himself in court, with legal counsel, and to challenge each allegation.
Garcia has been returned to the United States. After being mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025, he was brought back on June 6, 2025, with imminent accountability with constitutional protections fully intact.I hold Trump responsible for the actions of his cabinet as he is to supervise their actions and approve. No room for spin here or passing the buck….
I go by the law, not what I pick up from over-the-fence conversation. Just seems a bit unintelligent not to follow the facts and the law when making accusations..
If you go by the law, then why do you also go by Trump? They are incompatible.
I think what you are doing in linguistics is call "Sharpshooting". Trump, Trump administration, what is the difference? Trump as total control over anything his administration does, you know that.
When and where were his Trump-upped charges left out? They were part of the link, weren't they?
Why wasn't Garcia charged with all those things initially instead of kidnapping? Why didn't Trump afford him DUE PROCESS before he snuck him off to an El Salvadorian gulag?
I have no doubt that if it looks like he will be found innocent, Trump will find a way to disappear him again.
If they are able, all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, need to stop going to work for a week.
How long before Trump TACOs from the resulting depression?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/business … home-depotSpeaking of TACO, it seems Trump has caved on his signature destroy America by deporting all our immigrant workers program that MAGA elected him on.
"Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace," Trump wrote on the social media platform he owns.
He added that in many cases "Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy" are applying for these jobs. Wow, two lies in one sentence,
"This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!" Trump said. (If he wants to get CRIMINALS out of the USA, he should start with deporting himself, shouldn't he? After all he is a convicted serial felon and the worst of the worst, a sexual predator.)
This, of course, is a slap in the face of the chief mastermind of denuding America of its workforce, Stephen Miller, but hey, he deserves it. Make your 3,000 lives destroyed a day mandate NOW, Miller.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 166061007/
Hey Trump supporting ladies, you will just LOVE this one.
Not only did Trump increase the price on your domestically made refrigerators, washers, dryers, etc when he put on the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum, NOW he is coming after your imported appliances as well.
The Commerce Department, in a notice set to be published in the federal register Monday, said the recently increased steel tariffs would also apply to consumer appliances that contain steel. Those so-called derivative products will be taxed an additional 50% for the amount of steel they contain, starting on June 23.
Those products will include refrigerators, dryers, washing machines, dishwashers, freezers, ovens, garbage disposals and wire racks.
What a great guy, always looking out for you, lol.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/business … appliances"Hey Trump supporting ladies, you will just LOVE this one.
Not only did Trump increase the price on your domestically made refrigerators, washers, dryers, etc when he put on the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum, NOW he is coming after your imported appliances as well."
Wow...could you be any more sexist?
I suppose MEN never purchase domestically made refrigerators, washers, dryers, etc.Yes, caught that. His bait is weak, and I sort of imagine his --- oh can't go further. I will keep it polite.
Funny you should mention that. Problem is with your implication is that only 29% of men by appliances like that, I suspect most of them are single. What informed my remark is that 55% make the decision on their own.
https://openbrand.com/newsroom/blog/gen … hatgpt.com
Oh, how thoughtful of you to mansplain economic policy to the “Trump supporting ladies” like we’ve never seen a price tag or read a headline before. The condescension in your tone isn’t just cringe, it’s flat-out misogynistic. You’re not making a political argument; you’re sneering at women who dare to think independently. And frankly, it reeks of desperation.
Let’s talk about your so-called “gotcha.” Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum to stand up to decades of predatory trade practices, especially from China. These weren’t decisions made to hurt consumers; they were aimed at reviving U.S. manufacturing, restoring economic sovereignty, and defending national security. If you think that’s a bad thing, maybe take it up with the thousands of American workers who actually got their jobs back because of it.
Now you’re whining that appliances might cost a few bucks more if they contain imported steel? Cry me a river. Most Americans who support Trump, and yes, that includes millions of women, understand the basic concept of investing in the long term. Paying a bit more now to rebuild our industrial base and stop being held hostage by foreign supply chains? Worth every penny.
And let’s not pretend you actually care about consumer prices. You’re just bitter that Trump’s support, among women, no less, is stronger than your little talking points can handle. So instead, you mock, belittle, and throw out some smug sarcasm, hoping it sticks. It doesn’t.
Women who support Trump don’t need your approval, and they sure don’t need your sexist commentary masquerading as economic concern. If your argument was strong, you wouldn’t have to dress it up in cheap shots and patronizing jabs.
Try harder, your bait is weak.I'm sorry, had you read THAT headline? It was brand new so I figure the changes are very small. Sorry you don't want to be informed.
"Let’s talk about your so-called “gotcha.” Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum to stand up to decades of predatory trade practices, especially from China. " - Problem with that statement is - it isn't true. That is what he SAID is the reason, which you believe, but the facts make a liar out of him.
A federal judge just blocked Trump from disenfranchising the voting rights of a lot of people.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/politics … itizenshipJust when you thought he couldn't flip-flop anymore.
Trump...“Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers…They’re not citizens, but they’ve turned out to be great.”.
Has there ever been a more TACO Trump statement than now saying that undocumented immigrants who have been here for 20 years shouldn’t be thrown out by ICE?
Apparently he finally understands (his rich big AG friends told him) that the US has no agriculture sector without illegal/undocumented immigrants!
Soon he will realize how vital they are for construction, restaurants, food processing, the service industry etc. an executive order is coming.
Some MAGA people will be deeply disappointed. Hats off to you folks for being so flexible to exchange your firmly held beliefs of today for brand new firmly held beliefs with the daily changes of Trump's mind. The undocumented who had to be driven out at any cost yesterday will now be embraced as needed contributors to the economy!
Undocumented immigrants make up 6 million of the workers in essential industries in the United States, (according to a source in 2020, it's likely higher now) .... How many will receive amnesty under Trump?Good point. But it's unfortunate that they're criminals, murderers, and othor law breakers among the 6 millions. A year ago, I participated in a discussion in the forum about the topic, which is still current todate. Unfortunate again, a year has pass when Trump, said he should send them parking. Is Trump, trying to gain some point to bring them back? Or is he becoming a good politician?
Excerp from an Atlantic Monthly Article: a point that is made quite clearly, Trump is no George Washington any more than disaster is related to excellence….
—————
President George Washington offered a very different model of an American parade—one better suited for a moment that tested the nation’s founding principles. In October 1789, Washington was scheduled to visit Boston, which had planned a celebration in his honor. Unlike Trump, Washington resisted attempts to turn the event into a military display. The very notion of a ceremony organized around him made the first president uneasy.
As Washington explained to John Hancock, the governor of Massachusetts, “I am highly sensible of the honor intended me. But could my wish prevail, I should desire to visit your metropolis without any parade, or extraordinary ceremony.” Various newspapers echoed his concern. The Herald of Freedom reminded readers that Washington was traveling to Boston “not for the purposes of empty parade, or to acquire the applause of gaping multitudes.” He needed no “splendid mercenary guard.”
Although the day was very cold and the parade lasted many hours, the event pleased Washington because it represented what was, for him, the most important achievement of the American Revolution. That achievement wasn’t military in nature but political: a constitutional republic based on the will of the people, dedicated to advancing prosperity and protecting liberty. In Boston, he witnessed newly empowered citizens giving voice to an egalitarian order. “Your love of liberty—your respect for the laws—your habits of industry, and your practice of the moral and religious obligations,” he observed, “are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.”
Washington served in the Continental Army, so he understood the sacrifices that soldiers make for their country, and the public reverence those sacrifices are due. But he also knew the dangers of using the military for personal purposes. He saw clearly the need for the citizens of a republic to stand vigilant against the pretensions of a leader who would use the Army to flex his own might. He had no wish to become America’s elected monarch.I think most of the Founders, especially figures like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason, were deeply wary of standing armies and excessive military display. Madison famously wrote:
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” — Federalist No. 41.... Prophetic, right?
The Founders would probably view modern-style military parades with tanks, jets, and a head of state center stage with deep unease... seeing in them the shadow of monarchy, anything resembling Napoleonic or authoritarian spectacle would likely be seen as very offensive. Yet here we are.You gotta have your eyes wide shut not to recognize the clear difference between men of principle and Donald J. Trump. But there seem to be plenty that do…….
Yes, the USA, is coming out of a civil war, back then the American Civil War, isn't it?
No, we are talking about the first president after the Revolutionary War.
No, they had just finished the Revolutionary War. Our Civil War was another 70 or so years down the road.
Okay, @meso and @cred: what has that got to do with President Trump?
Are you missing the point Miebakagh? Military pass in review type parades are frowned upon in the American experience. The American armed forces serve the people and are not the praetorian guard for any one man. The attitude of George Washington is being compared with Trumps attitude, with the latter sorely lacking.
Thanks, with Trump it has become an absolute necessity.
Washington was a REAL leader who understood what democracy was all about.
While this Trump is a draft dodger who has no idea of what service means. Washington spoke from experience as a courageous leader, where does Trump speak from? While he takes food from the mouth of babes, he puts on a 45 million dollar dog and pony show. How is that for a definition of waste?
Well said Mike.
Does the left have pride in America?
I see no signs of that.Are you saying George Washington had no pride in America because he opposed military parades? Just asking.
Well, George Washington firmly opposed the type of display he is doing for himself.
So, since the Left opposes gaudy displays of American military might and Washington opposes gaudy displays of military might, what else can I conclude?Eso, from what you're saying, does it means the Right always like and displayed military strenght?
Nope, didn't say that. Until Trump, most regular Republicans never raised an objection that I heard for not having self-serving military parades.
P.S. Thank you for you Service with the Army, for this Country!
God Bless America!!Here is the timeline I promised. Each one, standing on its own, doesn't necessarily suggest authoritarianism; but taken together, they shout it to the rooftops. There is no doubt in my mind that any objective will come to the same conclusion.
FIRST - Definitions:
AUTHORITARIAN LEADER: Authoritarian leadership refers to any situation where a leader keeps hold of as much power and authority as possible. Also known as coercive or dictatorial leadership, authoritarian leaders, tend to keep all the decision-making authority to themselves and make the decisions about policies, procedures, tasks, structures, rewards and punishment themselves. The intention behind most authoritarian leaders is to retain control and they usually require unquestioning obedience and compliance.
Anyone failing to comply or becoming disobedience are likely to be threatened or actually subjected to some form of punishment.
Additionally, authoritarian leaders have been found to be significantly more likely to engage in a range of both overt and covert (hidden) manipulative behaviours, tactics and even intimidation to try to ensure compliance with their wishes. - SOURCE: https://oxford-review.com/oxford-review … eadership/
AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT: Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. A prominent justification for authoritarianism is the view that unquestioning obedience to authority is somehow crucial to maintaining the social order and preventing chaos and great harm. Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party, a leader or the military. SOURCE: https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabul … tarianism/ (We are not here yet, but getting close.)
Jan 20, 2025 – Pardons & Civil Service Overhaul: On Inauguration Day, Trump issued broad clemency for January 6 insurrectionists. NPR reported he granted “full, complete and unconditional pardon” to all 1,500 individuals charged in the Capitol attack, including those convicted of assaulting police officers SOURCE: npr.org
- Victims condemned it as a “miserable miscarriage of justice” - On this day, Trump showed where is allegiance really lay, with his insurrectionists and not democracy - the sure sign of an authoritarian SOURCE: npr.org
- That same day he reinstated his discredited “Schedule F” personnel plan (renamed Schedule Policy/Career), removing job protections from tens of thousands of policy-making civil servants. Experts warned this would politicize the bureaucracy and allow mass firings of dissenting officials, undermining the nonpartisan civil service I ran the first base closure analysis for the Air Force ages ago. At one point I was pressured to come up with an answer some general wanted. I said no. Only civil service protections saved my job. Under Trump, I would lose it. SOURCE: npr.org, protectdemocracy.org
- Civil liberties groups and unions immediately sued, calling the move a power grab that “erode[s] the government’s merit-based hiring system” This is a classic authoritarian move; Putin did something like it, now Trump is as well. SOURCE: npr.org
.
Jan 21, 2025 – DEI Crackdown: Trump signed executive orders to eliminate federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs. An order directed all agencies to terminate “all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI,” and the next day a follow-up order charged agencies with policing “illegal private-sector DEI” programs. This is not authoritarian itself, just racist in my opinion, but what followed next definitely is authoritarian. SOURCE: insidehighered.com
- Inside Higher Ed noted these directives even identified elite universities (with endowments over $1 billion) for potential “civil compliance investigations” Faculty reported immediate self-censorship: a law professor told NPR that many preemptively removed mentions of critical race theory from their biographies, fearing retaliation - Pure Putinesque authoritarianism SOURCE: insidehighered.com
- Observers warned the broad, vague orders were designed more to intimidate than effect legitimate reforms; one anonymous professor told NPR, “This administration does not seem to care about the Constitution… I don’t feel safe or secure” practicing free inquiry SOURCE: insidehighered.com
- (Courts began blocking the related funding freeze as unconstitutional
insidehighered.com.)
Late Jan 2025 – Birthright Citizenship Order: Trump issued an executive order seeking to strip birthright citizenship from children born here to noncitizen parents. NPR explained that several federal judges immediately blocked the order as blatantly unconstitutional, noting it directly conflicted with the 14th Amendment A direct attack on our Constitution is quite authoritarian SOURCE: npr.org
- A Biden Justice Department official called it “bad policy” without legal merit, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear a related case in May 2025. Critics portrayed the move as an unprecedented usurpation of constitutional law for political ends. Think about it, what Dictator do you know that respects constitutions? SOURCE: npr.org
Throughout Jan 2025, Trump replaces independent leaders with obedient loyalists: Since January 2025, Trump has systematically installed mostly unqualified or minimally qualified political loyalists across the executive branch, often bypassing traditional vetting procedures or norms[/u]. Analysts at Brookings and the Partnership for Public Service noted an unusually high number of appointees with limited qualifications but strong ideological loyalty to Trump and his 2024 campaign positions. Many of these individuals were installed in departments responsible for law enforcement, immigration, education, and environmental policy.
[b]The Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services were among those reportedly filled with “unapologetically partisan” figures, some of whom had previously promoted election denialism or openly pledged to carry out retributive policy. According to ProPublica, internal hiring memos prioritized “mission alignment” over “career civil service competence.”
Simultaneously, Trump has moved aggressively to assert control over independent federal agencies traditionally insulated from presidential command, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These agencies are chartered by Congress to operate outside direct White House oversight. Let me make this perfectly CLEAR - this man is taking over organizations he has no authority over!!
.
Feb 2025 – Anti-Transgender Orders: The administration moved swiftly against transgender rights. Within weeks, Trump signed orders banning gender-affirming care for minors and requiring that transgender federal inmates be housed according to birth sex. Federal judges (of varied political backgrounds) enjoined these policies, deriding them as rooted in animus rather than law. Doesn't Putin hate people not like him as well? SOURCE: 19thnews.org
- In open court a Biden-appointed judge declared the effect to be “‘horrible discrimination’” amounting to “the attempted erasure of trans people” Think Jews in 1938. SOURCE: 19thnews.org
- Critics said these decrees exemplified a punitive assault on civil liberties rather than any legitimate policy goal.
Mar 1, 2025 – “Unaccountable Agencies” Power Grab: In a largely unnoticed move, Trump signed a new executive order reining in independent agencies. The “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” order placed regulatory bodies (e.g. SEC, FTC) under White House oversight, with one clause effectively stating the president alone decides legal rules of operation. Constitutional scholars were alarmed. One former federal prosecutor called the order “breathtaking,” warning that Trump was “trying, quite consciously, to make himself an elected dictator” by claiming that “the law is determined by my will” SOURCE: theguardian.com
- Congressional Democrats protested it as an “unprecedented violation of American rule of law” that would open the way to cronyism and corruption. SOURCE: theguardian.com
Mar 2025 – Funding as a Political Cudgel: The White House began conditioning federal grants on ideological conformity. For example, reports emerged that NOAA warned The Nature Conservancy it risked losing funding unless it adopted the term “Gulf of America” (echoing Trump’s demand that the press use that term)
- Trump also publicly threatened to cut off any college “that allows illegal protests”
- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression noted these steps (and others targeting DEI) “raise First Amendment questions,” since using funding as leverage to control speech exceeds constitutional bounds
- A legal expert quoted by FIRE said bluntly that the government “cannot constitutionally use funding as a cudgel to control speech” on and off campus SOURCE: thefire.org
.
Mar 2025 – Authoritarian Rhetoric Intensifies: In speeches and social media Trump explicitly equated himself with sovereign power. He told Justice Department employees, “We are the federal law,” and even posted an image of himself wearing a crown with the caption “Long live the king”
- Vice President Vance similarly declared that courts “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”
- Critics interpreted these as open acknowledgments of his “strongman ambitions.” The Guardian reported that by late March Trump had “wasted no time in launching a concerted effort to consolidate executive power” summing up warnings that America was hurtling toward authoritarianism. SOURCE: theguardian.com
In March 2025, he signed an executive order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies”, reinterpreting the limits of executive control and demanding that “all agency heads align statutory implementation with the President’s policy vision.” Legal scholars—including some conservatives—warned this was an unconstitutional power grab that would gut the independence of regulatory agencies designed to act as a check on political power. A former OLC official under George W. Bush described the order as “an attempt to break the spine of the administrative state and replace it with loyalty oaths.”
Some commissioners at these agencies have since resigned or reported being sidelined by Trump-appointed general counsels empowered to override or reinterpret agency rules to match White House demands. Critics called this a quiet purge of independent oversight in favor of executive fiat.
Apr 2025 – Official English Language Order: Trump signed an executive order declaring English the U.S. “official language”
- The order rescinded a Clinton-era rule requiring federal agencies to provide language access in programs. NPR noted immigrant advocates feared this could let agencies drop translation services across the board
- Scholars described it as part of a broader nativist agenda: one policy analyst pointed out the order came alongside promises to deport millions and eliminate birthright citizenship, arguing it would stigmatize non–English speakers and shrink their rights SOURCE: npr.org
Apr 2025 – Federal Hiring Freeze & Firing Rule: Continuing the Schedule F campaign, the administration announced a hiring freeze for many agencies and proposed a new rule to make roughly 50,000 career officials “at-will” employees. NPR explained that an Office of Personnel Management rule (April 18) would reclassify those policy-makers as ‘Schedule Policy/Career’, removing their civil service protections
- The White House claimed this was needed to remove “rogue bureaucrats,” but public employee unions sued immediately. The president of the federal workers’ union warned the change “will erode the government’s merit-based hiring system and undermine the professional civil service”
- Critics likened it to classic autocratic methods of purging disloyal officials SOURCE: npr.org
.
Apr 2025 – U.S. Citizens Caught in Immigration Crackdown: Press accounts documented Americans being swept up in Trump’s immigration raids. The Washington Post reported multiple cases of U.S.-born citizens detained or nearly deported during the intensified enforcement wave
- Immigration law experts warned this was an inevitable result of the administration’s “all-out” mass-deportation drive, with one Cornell professor saying “due process be damned” seemed to guide the policy
- Civil rights advocates said the episodes highlight how the crackdown was undermining fundamental rights – a risky, authoritarian‐style overreach into private lives. SOURCE: washingtonpost.com
.
June 2025 – Militarized Response to Protests: Mass protests erupted in Los Angeles and other cities against Trump’s aggressive immigration raids. On June 7, Trump federalized 2,100 California National Guard troops (bypassing the governor’s authority) and sent Marines into L.A. to “suppress” the unrest Pure Authoritarianism
- The Washington Post noted this was the first such deployment in 60 years without a state request, and warned it signaled readiness to use military force on domestic protesters SOURCE: washingtonpost.com
- California’s governor and critics immediately denounced the action as “unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,” likening it to tactics of authoritarian regimes
washingtonpost.com SOURCE: theguardian.com
June 2025 – Prosecuting Dissent: Around the same time, the Justice Department ordered all U.S. Attorneys to prioritize and widely publicize prosecutions of protesters who damage property or confront police
- An internal memo warned there should be “no bottleneck” in charging demonstrators. Governor Newsom and other Democrats accused the administration of inflaming tensions and called the directive “a move more fitting for an authoritarian regime” SOURCE: reuters.com
- Civil liberties groups issued blistering statements: the ACLU said using military-backed raids and legal threats to stifle protest was “recklessly undermining” the norm that “the military should not police civilians” SOURCE: washingtonpost.com
.
June 2025 – Parade and Protests: On June 14, Trump presided over a large military parade in Washington (marking the Army’s 250th anniversary and his birthday). He told reporters any demonstrators would be “met with very big force” if they protested the event Authoritarian regimes do this, not democracies SOURCE: reuters.com
- Legal analysts warned that threatening force against peaceful protesters was plainly coercive. Civil rights lawyers noted that the specter of tanks in the streets and promises to crush dissent evoked historical authoritarian pageantry, far beyond normal presidential conduct. SOURCES: theguardian.com; reuters.com
.
Each timeline entry above cites contemporaneous reports or expert commentary. Together, these steps – executive orders, law enforcement directives, and menacing rhetoric – were repeatedly flagged by analysts and watchdogs as efforts to centralize power and quash opposition This is exactly what Putin does in Russia, although he goes further by murdering his opposition. SOURCE: theguardian.com
- Independent experts emphasized that many of these policies and threats directly challenge U.S. legal norms and civil liberties, warning they chart a course toward the kind of authoritarianism rarely seen in American history SOURCE: theguardian.com
The Sources above are easily researched and are: 1) Authoritative news accounts, 2) legal analyses, and 3) policy reports from NPR, The Washington Post, Reuters, The Guardian, and other outlets were used to compile this timelineTRUMP HAS CROSSED ANOTHER RUBICON.
He has Active Duty Marines detaining American Citizens on American soil. That is about as illegal as it gets.!!!!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marines- … -ad-recirc
[b}NEVER IN AMERICAN HISTORY HAS SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENED[/b] outside a designated border zone.!!!!! So disgraceful and authoritarian.In the age of Trump and his "Bold Agenda", scientist and researchers who have a moral compass are having to resign in order to remain honest to themselves.
I hope these people have a community they can join to further their good work unimpeded by Trump's thought-control.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/14/health/t … esignationI am going to say this and I know Trumpers on this forum are going to hang me out to dry, but it needs to be said.
I am 86 years old and I remember seeing newsreels of Hitler and Nazi Germany. ICE reminds me of the Gestapo, where if you were not of the Aryan race, you were deported as being inferior to the True German Race.
Stephen Miller says, "America is for Americans only.", but how do you define an American? it is not a race. It's based on whether you are documented or not.
The Constitution states that everyone in America is afforded due process of law, but not if you are being mass deported by ICE. It would jam the court system. This is a very clever way of denying that law to those being deported.
I have lived in Southern California for my whole life and we know the Spanish and Mexicans were here before us. Father Junipero Sierra set up the mission system all along the coast.to convert the indigenous Indians to Spanish ways and they thus became Mexicans.
Many of our streets and cities are named after the Spanish and Mexicans. In other words they were here before us. .
Trump's excuse for a military parade reminds me of Hitler's rallies that were held in Nuremberg to praise him and show strength to the rest of the world about the True and powerful Germany.
Trump, as a narcissist needs to be adored and in my view, this is the ultimate admiration he can receive. In fact this term is all about him doing everything he has every wanted to do and be treated by his sycophants.
And now I will wait for the blowback from Trumpers.Stephen Miller says, "America is for Americans only.",
Well I'd suggest that someone do a wellness check on Miller after Trump's latest pause on raids. LolSome how the farmers and hospitality people got through to Trump's brain.
Trump acknowledged that his crackdown was removing long-time workers from these industries, making it difficult to replace them. He stated that while he wants to protect farmers and hospitality businesses, he remains committed to deporting individuals he considers criminals.
This policy change follows large-scale protests against ICE raids, particularly in California, where farm owners reported that 25% to 45% of workers had stopped coming to work due to fear of deportation.
The American Farm Bureau Federation praised Trump’s decision, recognizing the vital role of farmworkers in maintaining the U.S. food supply.
The irony is Miller is a Jew whose relatives have disowned him because of his agenda and policies. He now acts like he is the head of the Gestapo (ICE).
He now has given orders to ICE to increase deportations to a quota of 3,000 per day. Isn't that at cross purposes to Trump's pause of field workers and manual labor? To me, this is an indication of lack of planning on Trump's part and his merry band of immigration chasers.
Any bet the Miller starts trying to rename any street with a Hispanic sounding name?
Yes, just think about it, 47th and Trump Street; Real American Ave. and Miller Place.
Hey, where are my beloved Trumpers and MAGA nites? I'm getting no replies here from any of you.I noticed that as well. Maybe they had an epiphany and decided to stop letting Trump con them or are too embarrassed.
We had a couple of pieces of good economic news this morning:
1. Inflation increased only .1 to 2.4% instead of the .2 that experts thought might happen.
2. Better news is that Core inflation stayed put at 2.8%
But that is where the good news stops.
- Housing and Shelter - Rent has increased 3.6% - 3.8%
- Food Away - Increased 3.8%, the largest in a while.
- Economists and the Federal Reserve warn that tariffs are already fanning inflation—despite current containment.
- Retailers like Walmart are beginning to raise prices as pre-tariff inventory runs low, signaling potential price hikes in the summer months https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-con … hatgpt.com
- Major appliances surged 4.3% year-over-year, the biggest jump since August 2020. It will be even worse once Trump's new tariffs on imported appliances kick in
- BLS Data Quality Concerns: The Bureau of Labor Statistics has cut staff and suspended data collection in several cities. Starting in August, it plans to eliminate about 350 index series, raising some concerns about future CPI accuracy and granularity Can you imagine being kept in the dark by Trump for 3 and half more years? That is NOT what the people elected Trump for.
- Trump has done this Before I reported not too long ago that he delayed the quarter’s “Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade” because he didn't like what it said about the growing trade deficit. He finally released it on June 2, though only as a data-only version dated May 29. The published version included the exact forecast figures — a record $49.5 billion trade deficit for fiscal 2025 — but it omitted the usual written analysis, shielding critical commentary that attributed the growing deficit in part to Trump’s tariff policies
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/0 … hatgpt.com
Hey Trump defenders here, is that what you elected Trump to do? Do you feel remorse yet? Even just a little?"Can you imagine being kept in the dark by Trump for 3 and half more years? That is NOT what the people elected Trump for."
Assuming you are talking about economic news - inflation, jobs, etc. - could it be any worse than the lies that Biden & Co. was feeding us?Biden & Co were totally transparent. You must have vacationed in Russia for four years or something.
New NBC polling...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi … rcna212686Besides the 5,000,000 people voting NO to Trump yesterday, let's see what the trend is:
Rasmussen (R): 53 - 45
Daily Mail (R): 48 - 52
Quantas Insights (-) 48 - 49
Economist(YouGov (-) 45 - 53
Quinipiac (-): 38 - 54
Morning Consult (D): 47 - 51
RMG Research (D): 52 - 46
CBS News (D): 45 - 55
NBC News Decision Desk (-): 45 - 55
Not surprisingly, Trump is LYING about his crowd size again. He is claiming 250,000 attended his parade. News media said it was MUCH lower than that with large gaps in the crowds,
Counter-protestors in D.C. was somewhere around 1,000, purposely small and situated away from the parade route to avoid confrontation.
Nationwide, however, the estimates have grown dramatically. Yesterday I reported up to 5 million. Now the estimates are credibly between 5 million and 12 million (I wonder how many of those didn't vote in November?)You got to love it! Trump, the felon, appointed fellow conspiracy theorist, MAGA podcaster to be Deputy Director of the FBI. Clearly, Dan Bongino gained a wealth of law enforcement and counter intelligence from running his podcast.
One of his favorite conspiracies was the FBI's cover-up of Jeffery Epstein's death while in custody.
Here is what he claimed in his podcasts:
1. Many "unnamed sources" told him there were multiple tapes incriminating multiple famous people.
2. They worked with the so-called "Deep State" in the FBI to silence Epstein.
3. Therefore, Epstein's death was not suicide but a murder by the "elite" to silence him.
Here is what he said on Fox News recently - "I investigated and he committed suicide".
Not surprisingly, Bondigo is now on MAGA's hit list.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/media/da … end_recircChristi Noem, that incompetent conspiracy theorists Trump put in charge of DHS has had DHS posted an image calling for help locating ‘all foreign invaders.’ It was previously circulated by far-right accounts
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/12/politics … end_recircGoing into the G7 tomorrow, Trump is, expectedly, in a terrible position.
At the 2024 G7, only 47% of the G7 members thought Biden would do the "right thing". That of course is a terrible number. But before the MAGA here go crowing - Trump is at a horrific 27%!!! - 2024 Pew Research Survey and 2025 Pew Research Survey.
By country, here is how much confidence Trump will do the WRONG thing:
Germany: 81%!
France: 78%
Canada: 77%
Italy: 68%
UK: 62%
Japan: 61%
What percent of Canadians want to reduce reliance on trade ties with the US.
91% to 9%!!
I betcha Trump is so full of himself, he actually thinks the G7 likes him.Good for him. And 'tomorrow's here. Let him go...and whack, or re-full himself.
One of Trump's "Bold Agenda" items was to fire a whole much of meteorologists. WELL, guess who he is blaming for poor attendance has his birthday parade?
[/b]Trump blames weather forecasters for predicting rain amid poor parade attendance[/b]
NOT only THAT, he says the fact that it didn't rain on the marchers (it did rain later), that is proof that climate change is a hoax.
"In another unfounded claim, the President said the fact rain didn't completely ruin his parade proved that climate change is a myth."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump … r-AA1GLIoUYou do know like me, for sure that Trump, don't ever like the sciences. So, that statement is a hoax, or joke of the day. Like most politicians, he's being merry with himself.
It would be nice if that were true, but Trump is dead serious.
HEADLINE
"Less than 10% of immigrants taken into ICE custody since October had serious criminal convictions, internal data shows"
OK, now that you know the truth that Trump once again lied to you, are you still going to defend Trump's illegal authoritarian actions? Or, will you stay silent or join the resistance against his attacks on the American economy?
The article is for CNN subscribers only (Fox will be making you do the same thing if it isn't already) so you might get an add to subscribe.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/16/us/la-ic … cords-invsEvery illegal alien - every single one - is guilty of multiple crimes. Now you can say that some were "serious" and some were not worthy of looking at, but we don't have laws to simply ignore them.
Illegal aliens are illegal. Period. End of conversation.No, the conversation is just beginning, because that assessment is just so much BS.
Right. It's not illegal for foreign citizens to be here without documentation granting permission. It's not illegal to work without being a citizen or having permission. It's not illegal to drive without a license or without insurance. It's not illegal to steal identity to get a bad SS#. It's not illegal for an illegal alien to get food stamps.
You do realize that every one of those statements is false? And that every illegal alien in the country violates at least one of them every day they are here?Would you agree that you are guilty of multiple crimes and most everybody you know are probably guilty of multiple crimes? Is it OK for citizens to be guilty of multiple crimes while it is for undocumented immigrants?
Why isn't there an ICE equivalent going around rounding up people like you and me who are also guilty of multiple crimes, if that is your metric.?"Is it OK for citizens to be guilty of multiple crimes while it is for undocumented immigrants?"
More solid evidence the left doesn't comprehend the difference between an illegal alien and an American citizen and legal immigrant.
American citizens and legal immigrants are not breaking any laws by being in the country where they belong. Illegal aliens are breaking laws by being in a country where they do not belong.
"Why isn't there an ICE equivalent going around rounding up people like you and me who are also guilty of multiple crimes"
I think there is such an ICE equivalent, it's called American law enforcement.Isn't that deflecting away from the real issue being brought up - Crimes?
Then why isn't Trump directing an all-hands-on-deck for suppressing the much more prevalent domestic crime like he is with undocumented immigrants?
Wouldn't he get more bang for the buck and not screw up our economy while he is doing it as he is with trying to chase hardworking immigrants out of America?No, the real issue are people who are here illegally committing crimes.
Crimes that would not happened should our immigration laws have been obeyed.
Think of all the rapes, murders, thefts, car jackings, etc. that wouldn't have happened should biden not have permitted so many people to be here illegally and without proper vetting.
The country's crime rates would have been significantly less.Then why do 9 out of 10 people arrested by ICE have no criminal record at all?
In fact, if you deport all undocumented immigrants, crime in America would go up, not down. Here’s why:
A major 2020 study by the Texas Department of Public Safety found that:
Undocumented immigrants commit 46% fewer felonies than native-born U.S. citizens.
Legal immigrants commit even fewer — 78% less.
Let me break that down with simple math:
Let’s say native-born citizens commit at a rate of 100 felonies per million people.
Based on the Texas study, undocumented immigrants commit only 54.
Now imagine:
There are 20 million undocumented immigrants (Trump's number)
And 315 million others in the U.S. population
If we apply those rates:
Native-born group: 315 million × 100 = 31,500 felonies
Undocumented group: 20 million × 54 = 1,080 felonies
So in total:
Before deporting anyone: 31,500 + 1,080 = 32,580 felonies
Divide by 335 million people = 97.3 felonies per million
But if you deport all 20 million undocumented immigrants?
Total becomes just 31,500 felonies
Divide by 315 million people = 100 felonies per million
That’s a 2.7% increase in the national crime rate — just from removing a group that commits less crime than average.
This means your claim that [i]"The country's crime rates would have been significantly less."[/i\ is Wrong.
CATO did a similar type study, but this time using "incarcerations" or "crimes" in general. Doing the same type of math you again end up with America being more dangerous in terms of the rate of crime - this time by a 2.4% Increase.
Face it Mike, your preconceived notions are simply wrong.I believe what you posted is something I would classify as absolute nonsense.
The left doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between a legal immigrants and American citizens opposed to illegal immigrants. Until that happens the immigration policy of the United States will remain a mystery to them.
Illegal immigrants should NOT be here. When they go all of the crimes they will commit goes with them.
It's just that simple.
You cannot compare legal immigrants and American citizens to illegal immigrants.
Why? Illegal immigrants shouldn't be here in the first place and are breaking the law by being in the country illegally.You made a claim and I refuted it. Why is that nonsense.
"They shouldn't be here illegally" is a common talking point — but it avoids the deeper truth: our immigration system has been broken for decades, and your side has consistently blocked real solutions.
Let’s be honest about who’s tried to fix it:
Every major immigration reform effort over the past 30 years — from Reagan’s 1986 amnesty to Bush’s 2007 bipartisan plan to Obama’s DACA — was driven by Democrats or bipartisan coalitions, not hardline Republicans.
And yet, conservative lawmakers have repeatedly killed these efforts, even when they included tougher border security and legal immigration reforms.
So ask yourself: if you believe in the rule of law, why block every attempt to update the law?
Now let’s talk about the “breaking the law” argument.
If lawbreaking were your real concern, then:
Why are you silent on areas where illegal activity does the most damage?
Corporate wage theft, environmental violations, tax fraud, and Wall Street crimes cost Americans far more than undocumented immigration ever will — but those don’t seem to bother you.
Why ignore the overwhelming evidence that undocumented immigrants contribute to our economy, not harm it?
They:
Fill critical jobs in agriculture, construction, and caregiving
Pay billions in taxes
Commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens
Without them, key industries would stall, prices would spike, and our labor force would shrink. That’s not an opinion — that’s the consensus from economists, business leaders, and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
So if the law is broken and you’ve helped prevent it from being fixed, and if the people you want removed are actually strengthening our economy — then what is this really about?
Because from the outside, it doesn’t look like concern for the law.
It looks like fear, resentment, and scapegoating — aimed at people who’ve risked everything to build better lives, and who just happen to not look or sound like you."...our immigration system has been broken for decades, and your side has consistently blocked real solutions."
Can't speak for Mike, buy "my side" has wanted enforcement of immigration laws for some time. "MY side" does NOT want unlimited immigrantion, with the open borders that Biden provided; the result is to deny liberal attempts to "fix" the system by simply making anyone on our soil legal. Had liberals suggested real, honest and useful legislation it might have been accepted, but they didn't.
We've gone over the costs of illegal aliens elsewhere. When you decide to be honest about those costs, willing to look at ALL of them rather than a small portion, it can be discussed again."MY side" does NOT want unlimited immigrantion, with the open borders that Biden provided; the result is to deny liberal attempts to "fix" the system by simply making anyone on our soil legal.
The Biden administration ministration acted under the current immigration laws... If they hadn't, your side would have sued... And as far as just simply making a large group of folks who are on our soil legal? that's what your guy is proposing. He wants to ignore those working in crucial industries. He wants to look the other way. He is caving to the interests of his billionaire buds who run these industries. His loyalties always lie with the rich.Biden Administration’s Policies Have Fueled Worst Border Crisis in U.S. History
https://oversight.house.gov/release/wra … %ef%bf%bc/
Note that it said policies... not laws...
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATORY AND POLICYMAKING EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW
https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-co … 16746/text
We Didn’t Need New Laws to Stop Illegal Immigration, We Just Needed a New President
https://mikejohnson.house.gov/news/docu … entID=1614You're actually citing from a Comer committee? LOL. Those aren't "policies" those are actual immigration laws.... They existed before Biden and they continue to exist...
And a lot of Biden kept in place were Trump policies.
Do you really expect anyone to believe the lies MAGA issues in those links?
While they don't lie as much as or as bad as Trump, they run a close second.
Would YOU agree to the old adage of "Innocent until proven guilty"? How about "You do the crime, pay the time"?
So prove the crimes and the time becomes (nearly) automatic.But Trump won't let that happen will he. He denies due process any chance he can get.
No, what is absurd is your singling out a small category of people committing crimes to go nuclear on. Either show the same enthusiasm for catching all jaywalkers, as you do of catching undocumented immigrants.
Otherwise, it is very hard to take your holier-than-thou position seriously.
So you are against Trump's pause on deporting from farms, restaurants, the hotel leisure industry, the food processing industry?
Unless he can do it legally, I am. I'm sick and tired - past sick and tired - of politicians refusing to maintain the laws of the country. It is long past time that this particular problem was put to rest...forever.
So, was it not you that believed that Trump was a messiah or something? He makes grandiose promises just to renege when they are no longer convenient. There is no legal solution, intimidating migrants in one part of the country while leaving migrants in another part alone? So, how does Trump weasel out of this one? Remember, Obama did not make the promises regarding massive immigration deportation that Trump trumpeted, so am I wrong to hold Trump to the standards that he himself proclaimed?
As always, your fantasies and ravings have no place in reality. Trump was never a messiah or anything close. Not one person in a million believed such an outrageous claim...except the fools that claim other people believe it.
Hold Trump the the same standards that politicians have been held to in the past. He makes outrageous promises...hold him to his word, given that like all other politicians he exaggerates and shades the truth. You like that Obama created a second class of people with his Dreamers, completely against the law, give Trump the same courtesy.He do try to make him accountable for his lies. It is your side that always finds an excuse for him.
And it is your side that will nit pick every word he utters, screaming "LIE LIE" at every sentence.
He is a politician. I don't like it, but politicians lie with almost every breath; when you scream LIE LIE at every other politician for their exaggerations, their impossible promises, their shading the truth...why then you have the right to do it to Trump as well.
But you don't, do you? You let them go, recognizing the "politico speak" and ignoring their transgressions.No, only a very few politicians actually lie "with every breath"; that is a conservative myth.
Why do we point out after most of his sentences that he is lying? How about because he is.
I forget you are a jaywalker is the same as a murderer kind of guy. That goes a long way, besides believing myths, to explain your post.
Why not put domestic violence to rest ... forever? Many more people are hurt or killed by home grown killers than ones from the immigrant community. Is there a reason for you to ignore domestic violence?
Is there a reason to bring it up at all? Are you trying to say that because there are criminals that all illegal aliens feeding off of Americans shall be given a "bye" to the laws concerning their status?
(There is also the small matter of numbers: I doubt there are actually 20,000,000 "home grown killers" in the country, but there are almost certainly more illegal aliens than that.)So you are repeating Trump's line that ALL undocumented immigrants are killers.
So are the ICE agents who are arresting them. Your point?
Wow. That claim is certainly worth of examination. Please provide proof that every ICE agent is illegal.
Because with very few exceptions, if any, EVERYONE has broken the law many times in their lifetimes. No other proof is needed. Besides you never provide any.
BTW, did you ever answer me whether you would turn in your underage son, grandson, or great-grandson (which ever would apply to this hypothetical) who you caught drinking?
Oh but the outrage of Hunter trying to sell his paintings LOL
Does the grift ever end? Will this be bankruptcy 8 or 9?
https://x.com/maddenifico/status/1934591880055988248Here is a group those who believe crime should be punished to take note of - Right wing Domestic Terrorists.
The Right-wing is responsible for 49% of the violence in America.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rising-th … hatgpt.com
https://www.csis.org/analysis/pushed-ex … hatgpt.com
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t … hatgpt.com
The same sources show that the Left is responsible for 40% of the violence; significantly lower.
More striking, however, is the fact that between the two, the Right is much more lethal!
While it is appropriate to be upset over the violence coming from the Left, it is almost criminal for NOT being upset over the violence coming from the Right and trying to draw a false equivalency between the two.
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 6 weeks ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 15 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 15 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 2 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...
- 192
Global Warming is Socialist Propaganda
by Nickny79 16 years ago
Mississippi and Lousiana get snow: http://news.aol.com/article/rare-snow-c … 1200988198So much for global warming. I bet Al Gore was scheduled to give a speech in New Orleans.