For Those Supporting the Portland Arrests... How Quickly the Bundy Group Members Are Forgotten

[toomuchtime_]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.

Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.

Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."

I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?

Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.

He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301

You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.

Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.

That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here. This is no different than when Trump told Sessions to enforce drug laws into states that had made marijuana legal. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

It is ironic however because Trump ran on the platform of shrinking federal government and giving more power back to the states. Of course he is only doing that for laws he likes.

Now you're just rambling. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution, and it is not something the President has any control over. But this has nothing to do with the letter, which only addresses cases in which the crimes underlying the seizures were in violation of both federal and state laws, and it defines the procedures for deciding which gets the assets. So if some state have abandoned asset forfeiture laws, and I don't believe any have, the letter does not address them, but regardless of what state law may be, federal law enforcement officers are and always have been free to pursue those who violate federal law anywhere in the US, and to seize assets when appropriate under federal law, but this is how it has always been, and is not anything new under Trump.

 

[Lewdog]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.

Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.

Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."

I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?

Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.

He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301

You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.

Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.

That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here. This is no different than when Trump told Sessions to enforce drug laws into states that had made marijuana legal. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

It is ironic however because Trump ran on the platform of shrinking federal government and giving more power back to the states. Of course he is only doing that for laws he likes.

Now you're just rambling. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution, and it is not something the President has any control over. But this has nothing to do with the letter, which only addresses cases in which the crimes underlying the seizures were in violation of both federal and state laws, and it defines the procedures for deciding which gets the assets. So if some state have abandoned asset forfeiture laws, and I don't believe any have, the letter does not address them, but regardless of what state law may be, federal law enforcement officers are and always have been free to pursue those who violate federal law anywhere in the US, and to seize assets when appropriate under federal law, but this is how it has always been, and is not anything new under Trump.

Wrong. The supremacy Clause is what allows the DOJ to extend laws into states that have banned it. This is as straight forward as it gets. It is how they enforce marijuana laws in states that have legalized it. Under Obama he told the AG to NOT use federal law to supersede state laws on it, but Trump switched the stance when he took over.

AWFUL TRUMP: DOJ To Use Asset Forfeiture Even In States That Banned It | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

 

[toomuchtime_]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.

Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.

Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."

I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?

Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.

He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301

You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.

Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.

Trump conflates law and order with authoritarianism.

Then why arent we seeing authoritarianism?

We are. Attempting to use the Military against citizens so he could have a photo op?

Even the military dug in their heels at that.

lol There is no military being used. The federal officers are all law enforcement officers.

Law enforcement officers dressed as military. Even Esper has complained about them being dressed that way.

There is a rapid response team in Portland as well as federal marshalls and other federal law enforcement officers. A federal rapid response team is the equivalent of a SWAT team in local law enforcement. They are not military, they are law enforcement officers just as local SWAT teams are, but they have received special training in how to handle various crisis situations, just as local SWAT teams have. Crazy Nancy's rantings and ravings about storm troopers and kidnappings have apparently driven you crazy too.

 

[Dale Smith]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

 

[Lewdog]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

 

[Dale Smith]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

I have zero problem with peaceful protest..... but rioting , assaulting and looting doesn't qualify.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.

Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.

Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."

I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?

Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.

He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301

You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.

Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.

That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here. This is no different than when Trump told Sessions to enforce drug laws into states that had made marijuana legal. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

It is ironic however because Trump ran on the platform of shrinking federal government and giving more power back to the states. Of course he is only doing that for laws he likes.

Now you're just rambling. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution, and it is not something the President has any control over. But this has nothing to do with the letter, which only addresses cases in which the crimes underlying the seizures were in violation of both federal and state laws, and it defines the procedures for deciding which gets the assets. So if some state have abandoned asset forfeiture laws, and I don't believe any have, the letter does not address them, but regardless of what state law may be, federal law enforcement officers are and always have been free to pursue those who violate federal law anywhere in the US, and to seize assets when appropriate under federal law, but this is how it has always been, and is not anything new under Trump.

Wrong. The supremacy Clause is what allows the DOJ to extend laws into states that have banned it. This is as straight forward as it gets. It is how they enforce marijuana laws in states that have legalized it. Under Obama he told the AG to NOT use federal law to supersede state laws on it, but Trump switched the stance when he took over.

AWFUL TRUMP: DOJ To Use Asset Forfeiture Even In States That Banned It | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Are you trying to sound stupid? Of course federal law applies everywhere in the US and always has but while the Supremacy clause states very clearly that state laws must be in compliance with federal laws and state courts must rule that state laws not in compliance with federal law are not valid, the federal government cannot compel state governments to seize assets of criminals and the state cannot prevent the federal government from doing so if a federal law was violated, however this is how it has always been since the signing of the Constitution and nothing President Trump did in any way changed that.

 

[Lewdog]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

I have zero problem with peaceful protest..... but rioting , assaulting and looting doesn't qualify.

What was peaceful about the Bundy occupation? They were armed and held federal land for like 41 days. They set up road blocks with armed guards. They caused $6 million in damages.

 

[Lewdog]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.

Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.

Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."

I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?

Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.

He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301

You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.

Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.

That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here. This is no different than when Trump told Sessions to enforce drug laws into states that had made marijuana legal. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

It is ironic however because Trump ran on the platform of shrinking federal government and giving more power back to the states. Of course he is only doing that for laws he likes.

Now you're just rambling. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution, and it is not something the President has any control over. But this has nothing to do with the letter, which only addresses cases in which the crimes underlying the seizures were in violation of both federal and state laws, and it defines the procedures for deciding which gets the assets. So if some state have abandoned asset forfeiture laws, and I don't believe any have, the letter does not address them, but regardless of what state law may be, federal law enforcement officers are and always have been free to pursue those who violate federal law anywhere in the US, and to seize assets when appropriate under federal law, but this is how it has always been, and is not anything new under Trump.

Wrong. The supremacy Clause is what allows the DOJ to extend laws into states that have banned it. This is as straight forward as it gets. It is how they enforce marijuana laws in states that have legalized it. Under Obama he told the AG to NOT use federal law to supersede state laws on it, but Trump switched the stance when he took over.

AWFUL TRUMP: DOJ To Use Asset Forfeiture Even In States That Banned It | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Are you trying to sound stupid? Of course federal law applies everywhere in the US and always has but while the Supremacy clause states very clearly that state laws must be in compliance with federal laws and state courts must rule that state laws not in compliance with federal law are not valid, the federal government cannot compel state governments to seize assets of criminals and the state cannot prevent the federal government from doing so if a federal law was violated, however this is how it has always been since the signing of the Constitution and nothing President Trump did in any way changed that.

The President has the power to tell the DOJ to enforce federal laws that supersede state laws. Of course Trump has to do with that. I just gave you an example of the opposite when Obama told AG Holder NOT to do it with marijuana laws. I'm not going to continue to argue this with you when it is about as straight forward as it gets.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

To you this establishes a right to shoot three year old children in the head. To you this excuses burning down a business a family has put 30 years into building. To you it justifies dragging someone out of their car and beating them into a coma.

You are filthy.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

I have zero problem with peaceful protest..... but rioting , assaulting and looting doesn't qualify.

What was peaceful about the Bundy occupation? They were armed and held federal land for like 41 days. They set up road blocks with armed guards. They caused $6 million in damages.

They weren't destroying a city as the lunatics in Portland are doing.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

There is nothing in your link about Trump extending asset forfeiture.

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

I forget----were the bundy people trashing the lands upon which they had descended? Were people dying daily as a result of the BUNDY GANG?

Yes they trashed the building and there was a shoot out. The reason for the occupation was because the cattle ranchers were setting ILLEGAL fires on the federal grazing lands.

You forget Lew...that was Righteous protest.

ok ----I forget-----what were they righteously protesting? Why were cattle ranchers setting
fires on federal grazing lands----that sounds like a
serious crime to me but not as bad as the urban
nitemare ongoing by BLM

She was being sarcastic.

I got the note of sarcasm-----but still do not see how
the two issues can be conflated

How can you not see it? Trump justified sending the federal troops to PROTECT federal buildings and property.

The Bundy group occupied and damaged federal property, yet Trump pardoned them.

Why was it ok for the Bundy group to occupy and damage federal land and buildings, but he needs to send federal officers to arrest others for doing it in Portland? It's quite simple. Either you say both are just exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, OR both are guilty of damaging federal property. The only difference is who the 2 groups are.

Portland protesters are using lasers against police officers, and it is feared that three of those so wounded in less than 15 seconds may never see again. Just shootin' the laser gunners sounds good to me.

And those that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Should the officer that shot a peaceful protestor in the face, fracturing his skull be prosecuted?

officer shot a peaceful protestor in the face?

An anarchist throwing fireworks and mortars at federal agents got hit by non

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

In the Bundy case, that federal property wasnt in jeapordy of being destroyed.

Oh? They caused destruction. Splitting hairs here.

There was no destruction. Trash was left behind. Someone posted pictures. Nothing was destroyed. A corrupt democrat administration, Biden was vice president, tried to seize this family's ranch to enrich the Democrat speaker's son. The federal government under shitstain obama was completely corrupt. They seized the Bundy's cattle. The conduct was so egregious that not a single auction, slaughterhouse or storage facility would take a single head of stolen cattle. Cowboys went and got all those cattle back. The Bundy family had a legitimate grievance. Protesting the civil war is NOT a legitimate grievance.

Wrong. The federal government REVOKED their rights to graze on federal land because Bundy quit paying the taxes for doing so and Bundy continued to do it anyway. So they confiscated cattle that were illegally on federal land.

You've made your stance quite obvious that you only care about laws being enforced as long as it is by someone that you don't support. View attachment 367292

I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats.

Then you don't follow the laws very much. Under Trump the federal government has EXTENDED the laws that allow seizure of private property of citizens after an arrest but pre-conviction. So you against that? Are you against Trump doing that?

Trump Gives Thumbs-Up To Cops Taking More Stuff Away From People

The president endorsed civil asset forfeiture, which lets police seize even innocent people's property.

www.huffpost.com

Is this an admission you lost the argument? Now comes the deflection to an argument you thunk you can win with Huffpo articles.

Communists always make me feel like I need to use hand sanitizer and brush my teeth.

Lost what argument? You said, "I don't support corrupt democrats seizing private property to enrich democrats."

I showed you where TRUMP extended the civil asset forfeiture laws. You can do a search and look for any source you want if you don't like mine. It doesn't change that. So are you against what Trump did?

Actually, you didn't show that Trump extended asset forfeiture, just that he thought was a good thing, and used properly, it is.

He had the DOJ EXTEND it into states that had stopped doing it. You need to educate yourself and pay more attention to what he does, not just his Twitter.View attachment 367299View attachment 367300View attachment 367301

You are confused. Nowhere in the letter does it extend asset forfeiture into states that don't already have it, which I imagine are few if any. It discusses only how the state and federal governments will deal with such assets if they are seized by the state.

Wrong. It extends it into states that had stopped the practice. It is making states comply to the rule through federal mandate.

That is simply not true. It only addresses the issue of seized assets where both federal and state laws were violated. The federal government cannot mandate state law or order states to enforce federal laws. If the state hasn't already seized assets, this letter has no relevance.

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong here. This is no different than when Trump told Sessions to enforce drug laws into states that had made marijuana legal. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

It is ironic however because Trump ran on the platform of shrinking federal government and giving more power back to the states. Of course he is only doing that for laws he likes.

Now you're just rambling. The Supremacy clause is in the Constitution, and it is not something the President has any control over. But this has nothing to do with the letter, which only addresses cases in which the crimes underlying the seizures were in violation of both federal and state laws, and it defines the procedures for deciding which gets the assets. So if some state have abandoned asset forfeiture laws, and I don't believe any have, the letter does not address them, but regardless of what state law may be, federal law enforcement officers are and always have been free to pursue those who violate federal law anywhere in the US, and to seize assets when appropriate under federal law, but this is how it has always been, and is not anything new under Trump.

Wrong. The supremacy Clause is what allows the DOJ to extend laws into states that have banned it. This is as straight forward as it gets. It is how they enforce marijuana laws in states that have legalized it. Under Obama he told the AG to NOT use federal law to supersede state laws on it, but Trump switched the stance when he took over.

AWFUL TRUMP: DOJ To Use Asset Forfeiture Even In States That Banned It | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Are you trying to sound stupid? Of course federal law applies everywhere in the US and always has but while the Supremacy clause states very clearly that state laws must be in compliance with federal laws and state courts must rule that state laws not in compliance with federal law are not valid, the federal government cannot compel state governments to seize assets of criminals and the state cannot prevent the federal government from doing so if a federal law was violated, however this is how it has always been since the signing of the Constitution and nothing President Trump did in any way changed that.

The President has the power to tell the DOJ to enforce federal laws that supersede state laws. Of course Trump has to do with that. I just gave you an example of the opposite when Obama told AG Holder NOT to do it with marijuana laws. I'm not going to continue to argue this with you when it is about as straight forward as it gets.

lol You're not going to continue the discussion because you understand that the President in no way forced the states to do anything in regard to asset forfeiture.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

I have zero problem with peaceful protest..... but rioting , assaulting and looting doesn't qualify.

What was peaceful about the Bundy occupation? They were armed and held federal land for like 41 days. They set up road blocks with armed guards. They caused $6 million in damages.

They were out in the wilderness. They harmed no one. Democrat controlled agents killed one of the protesters. Nothing was damaged, burned or torn down.

Just stop. You have lost, completely.

 

[Lewdog]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

To you this establishes a right to shoot three year old children in the head. To you this excuses burning down a business a family has put 30 years into building. To you it justifies dragging someone out of their car and beating them into a coma.

You are filthy.

I have said very clearly I don't support the breaking of ANY laws. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration, and then fish like you jumped on the hook to prove your own hypocrisy along with it. You were very clear that you didn't care if the Bundy's broke the law because you liked what they were protesting.

At no point whatsoever have I justified any laws being broken. I'd love for you to quote me saying it. Wanna make a loser leaves the forum bet?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

I keep forgetting....it is only ok to protect federal property when the activists are leftists?

By activists you mean terrorists.

 

[Lewdog]

It has become pretty obvious here that it is all political. Those who support Trump's actions have gone from, "It isn't the same..." or "The Bundy's had a good reason to break the law" to "But the people in Portland are doing more damage!"

I thought Trump followers were all about law and order? Why should the law be enforced differently for different people? Let's just talk about the letter of the law. Did the Bundy's take over federal property with armed protesters? Was that against the law? Leave out the purpose... because the law has nothing to do with purpose. You either break the law or you don't. It wasn't accidental. It was purposeful just like the people in Portland. So you should either be against both, or for both standing up regardless of the damage caused. Or you are a hypocrite.

I think protesting is important and there is a reason it is in the 1st Amendment, but hurting people and doing damage is wrong. Of course is what Trump is doing escalating the situation? Of course it is. Just the same as Waco being escalated, Ruby Ridge, etc. All are wrong. Why can't people quit the partisan bull shit and realize it?

 

[Dale Smith]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

To you this establishes a right to shoot three year old children in the head. To you this excuses burning down a business a family has put 30 years into building. To you it justifies dragging someone out of their car and beating them into a coma.

You are filthy.

I have said very clearly I don't support the breaking of ANY laws. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration, and then fish like you jumped on the hook to prove your own hypocrisy along with it. You were very clear that you didn't care if the Bundy's broke the law because you liked what they were protesting.

At no point whatsoever have I justified any laws being broken. I'd love for you to quote me saying it. Wanna make a loser leaves the forum bet?

We don't have laws because corporations can't make laws and USA.Inc is a corporation. If by not giving a flying fuck about commie asswipes makes me a " hypocrite" in your eyes? I can live with that and sleep soundly. Just dry your little eyes because they will not be treated in any shape, fashion or form like the Bundys and those that supported them that leftards here GLADLY cheered for.

 

[Lewdog]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

To you this establishes a right to shoot three year old children in the head. To you this excuses burning down a business a family has put 30 years into building. To you it justifies dragging someone out of their car and beating them into a coma.

You are filthy.

I have said very clearly I don't support the breaking of ANY laws. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration, and then fish like you jumped on the hook to prove your own hypocrisy along with it. You were very clear that you didn't care if the Bundy's broke the law because you liked what they were protesting.

At no point whatsoever have I justified any laws being broken. I'd love for you to quote me saying it. Wanna make a loser leaves the forum bet?

We don't have laws because corporations can't make laws and USA.Inc is a corporation. If by not giving a flying fuck about commie asswipes makes me a " hypocrite" in your eyes? I can live with that and sleep soundly. Just dry your little eyes because they will not be treated in any shape, fashion or form like the Bundys and those that supported them that leftards here GLADLY cheered for.

The laws are clear. You are only a hypocrite if you think it is ok for Trump to pardon people for breaking the same laws as those he is sending unmarked federal officers to grab Portland protesters off the street for damaging federal property. They are both breaking the same laws.

 

[Dale Smith]

I believe those in this thread should use the "Search" feature here and put in "Bundy's".....I believe you will get quite the " eye -opener" as it pertains to the human garbage that makes up the leftists.

Did you watch the video of one of the Bundy group saying he supports the BLM protesters saying people should fear the police more? It was posted in here.

To you this establishes a right to shoot three year old children in the head. To you this excuses burning down a business a family has put 30 years into building. To you it justifies dragging someone out of their car and beating them into a coma.

You are filthy.

I have said very clearly I don't support the breaking of ANY laws. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Trump administration, and then fish like you jumped on the hook to prove your own hypocrisy along with it. You were very clear that you didn't care if the Bundy's broke the law because you liked what they were protesting.

At no point whatsoever have I justified any laws being broken. I'd love for you to quote me saying it. Wanna make a loser leaves the forum bet?

We don't have laws because corporations can't make laws and USA.Inc is a corporation. If by not giving a flying fuck about commie asswipes makes me a " hypocrite" in your eyes? I can live with that and sleep soundly. Just dry your little eyes because they will not be treated in any shape, fashion or form like the Bundys and those that supported them that leftards here GLADLY cheered for.

The laws are clear. You are only a hypocrite if you think it is ok for Trump to pardon people for breaking the same laws as those he is sending unmarked federal officers to grab Portland protesters off the street for damaging federal property. They are both breaking the same laws.

Before you have the vapors, let's see if these commie fucks are actually charged, denied bail and have a corrupt judge and D.A going up against them. Commie lives don't mean even so much as dogshit to me.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I forget ... was Bundy burning down The Target?

Trump didn't send federal officers for burning down a Target, he said it was to protect federal property. Try to keep on subject.

All presidents, this one included, can pardon anyone they choose while in office. There's a long list of people that were pardoned under Obama. As for Trump, I seem to recall he gave a much needed clemency to Alice Marie Johnson, who was serving a life sentence for cocaine possession and money laundering and a commutation of a 20 year sentence for Tynice Nichole Hall, for intent to distribute crack cocaine.
As for BLM and Antifa, they are Marxists (Communists) whose goal it is to destroy our very Constitution and government. They are also violent and don't deserve a pardon. Plus none have been sentenced and serving time, as of yet.