We dissent

So when snipers shoot ICE facilities killing illegals, and you even agree that the NG protecting ICE legal, what "rest" is BS and is "unconstitutional"?
The NG is protecting ICE, they are not kicking down doors looking for illegals.
They can protect ICE, they have no business protecting anyone or anything else, as long as it is federal, there is no issue.
 
I agree to a point but I don’t think Portland, the hell hole it is has not risen to that point yet. But I also concede the libs in Portland are pretty clueless.
Over the last few days we have watched independent reporters attacked by antifart, often in sight of police.

The police response has been to arrest the reporters.

That's criminal.

That shows me that Portland is in an active state of insurrection.
 
1760372907118.webp
 
Protesters are pwning ICE all around the country.

Showing up in inflatable costumes, dangling donuts in front of them, turning their backs to them and bending over shouting, "Arrest me daddy!" :lol:

Such violence! Our cities are burning! :laughing0301: :auiqs.jpg:
Who cares what protesters think, ICE is doing their job and obeying the law. A bunch of nobodies, with no lives are nothing. If they get violent then ICE has every right to defend themselves. This is a typical liberal FAFO.
 
Over the last few days we have watched independent reporters attacked by antifart, often in sight of police.

The police response has been to arrest the reporters.

That's criminal.

That shows me that Portland is in an active state of insurrection.
I get where you are coming from and I really respect your opinions and they always help me think things through however I respectfully disagree. I am worried about eroding the Constitution and my concern is in the future it will be abused.
 
Who cares what protesters think, ICE is doing their job and obeying the law. A bunch of nobodies, with no lives are nothing. If they get violent then ICE has every right to defend themselves. This is a typical liberal FAFO.
Way to miss the point.

Trump claimed our cities were on fire to justify sending in troops.

When told that mayors and governors were all pointing out their cities are not on fire, Cosplay Barbie said they were lying.

Incredible irony and hubris.

You have to ask yourself what the orange King's true motives are. He is counting on you submissive anti-conservative cucks NOT doing that.

.
 
I get where you are coming from and I really respect your opinions and they always help me think things through however I respectfully disagree. I am worried about eroding the Constitution and my concern is in the future it will be abused.
In that we are both agreed. But how long will you allow local governments to abuse the Rights of their citizens?

Suppressing the press is full on authoritarianism. That's what Portland is attempting.
 
15th post
Way to miss the point.

Trump claimed our cities were on fire to justify sending in troops.

When told that mayors and governors were all pointing out their cities are not on fire, Cosplay Barbie said they were lying.

Incredible irony and hubris.

You have to ask yourself what the orange King's true motives are

I am all for ICE removing illegal immigrants, they need to be eradicated and comeback the legal way.

I do not think Trump has no right to send troops into cities unless he is protecting federal buildings and the state and city have no interest in protecting them.

To claim that Chicago is safe is comical, there are areas that delivery trucks won’t go because of the dangers.

Portland is a city in decline, outside the downtown in suburbs like Hillsboro, Beaverton and Vancouver area there is growth. The city has tried to encourage businesses to reopen and fill office buildings however many consider these areas a too dangerous.

Cities like Portland, Seattle and San Francisco were places I liked to go to but I won’t go, too dangerous and if you aren’t homeless a protester or a criminal, they won’t protect you.

The plus side is you can shoplift up to $900 in those cities and no one cares.
 
I am all for ICE removing illegal immigrants, they need to be eradicated and comeback the legal way.

I do not think Trump has no right to send troops into cities unless he is protecting federal buildings and the state and city have no interest in protecting them.

To claim that Chicago is safe is comical, there are areas that delivery trucks won’t go because of the dangers.

Portland is a city in decline, outside the downtown in suburbs like Hillsboro, Beaverton and Vancouver area there is growth. The city has tried to encourage businesses to reopen and fill office buildings however many consider these areas a too dangerous.

Cities like Portland, Seattle and San Francisco were places I liked to go to but I won’t go, too dangerous and if you aren’t homeless a protester or a criminal, they won’t protect you.

The plus side is you can shoplift up to $900 in those cities and no one cares.
If you can find a store that's open you mean. Good luck.
 
I do not think Trump has no right to send troops into cities unless he is protecting federal buildings and the state and city have no interest in protecting them.
10 USC S253:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.




 
10 USC S253:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Funny. You seem to be pretending there's a legitimate reason for all this, beyond political intimidation. Seriously?
 
Back
Top Bottom