828
Life advice
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
828 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
8195 readers
2385 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You sure seem more concerned about isolated incidents than the blatant abuse of power.
B-b-but whatabout all the rich people's stuff 👉👈 🥺? Someday, I could have all of that rich people stuff and that could be my stuff on fire and that would make me so sad!
The breakdown of the law is the breakdown of the law who cares who's stuff it is. That's also ignore the brick throwing (also known as assault with a deadly weapon)
You absolutely correct. Breakdown of the law has been a problem in the US since the hard bank right into fascism. But I am way less bothered by throwing bricks at the cosplaying nazis and way more bothered by the unitary executive bullshit. We should have a president, which should be a glorified administrator working for the legislature. Not a king that ignores the law. If we need to burn some of the oligarchy's shit to remind the orange asshole of this, so be it.
The execute bullshit is a legal power granted to the president. The brick throwing is literally assault with a deadly weapon I don't see how u can justify that. It doesn't matter what u think the president should be it matters what the laws of the country state that the president is. What laws are being broken in the case of la (well except the rioters)?
deportations by ice without due process in violation of court orders (this is what the people in LA are directly protesting)
the president commandeering the national guard for domestic use in absence of an invasion
U have been misled. All people deported have already been issued with "final orders of removal" at which point the supreme court agrees you no longer have any right to due process. As that was forfeit when you failed to turn up to ur court appearance. Ie illegal immigrants where told hey ur here illegally come make ur case or ur getting deported. Said illegal immigrants then failed to show up at which point they where issued with "final orders of removal" most of these illegal immigrants where issued this years ago and have simply been illegally in the country ever since.
"10 U.S.C. 12406," within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Doesn't need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Untrue. Deportation and detention of American citizens in the second Trump administration.
There is no credible danger of rebellion from unarmed protestors. The fatality count stands at zero and the casualties are mostly journalists who have been injured by the police
Not according to the Constitution which grants these powers to the Supreme Court who have stated that what Trump is doing is illegal
"10 U.S.C. 12406," within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Doesn't need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
Is a riot actually a rebellion? No. Is breaking the law a rebellious act? No.
Was January 6 a riot or a rebellion?
A riot and attempted rebellion. Trump wanted the nation guard their and was blocked by the local govner.
Well that's strange, don't you think? Why did he usurp Newsom's power in CA, but refused to do so in DC? Could it be that he would stand to gain something if the coup succeeded?
Maybe because last time when he didn't there was an insurrection? Maybe he learned from last time?
The only people who have done anything illegal are the rioters. U might not like what trumps doing but it is entirely within the rule of law
Dude, you're a muppet if you think everything he has done is within the law. The only reason he is getting away with breaking the law is because the only check is the legislature's power of impeachment and it has been captured by the fascists.
Related to la what has he done that's illegal?
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard In Federal Service
(3): [...] Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states
Trump specifically did not engage with Newsom in commandeering CA National Guard troops.
18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under the circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Using the military for ICE enforcement is against the law.
Want more information? https://youtu.be/zJ7Dfca4_y8
"10 U.S.C. 12406," within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the U.S. government. Doesn't need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
This is conflating "rebellious" with a rebellion. Rebellion is an uprising that resists and is organized against one's government. The scale and degree matter, here. Your definition would turn any civil disobedience into a "rebellion" which is farcical on its face.
So an organised resistance of ice (the federal government) from carrying out their duty. On a scale large enough that the local police could not maintain the laws of the nation. Is that of sufficient scale and resistance?
No. That is far, far below sufficient. An example of a rebellion is when the confederacy decided slaves were more important than unity and literally attempted to form another government. There are many other examples of rebellion you can draw from history, and from fiction that all seek usurping power and wholesale replacement of the existing government. That is a whole different ballgame than harassing some cosplaying nazis that are overstepping the bounds of civility and getting butthurt that people aren't licking their boots.
You skipped over reading this part.
Maybe a fucking insurrection on Jan 6?
Maybe raping fucking toddlers (Epstein files, which he's starkly refused to release)?
Or, maybe ordering ICE to blockade traffic in order to deliberately incite chaos as an excuse to use the army.
Did u read the part of my comment when I said in relation to la? The ironic thing is that jan6 was more peicful than what's happening lol.
Which is why I included the last link.
And no, anybody that lives in LA can tell you the current protests are more peaceful than J6 even while having more people turning out.
That’s strange, how has he lost so many court cases then (overseen by judges he appointed)
We are talking about la here not his other activity.
Point of order:
"Illegal" isn't always "immoral". "Legal" isn't always "moral".
If one's best defense is "it's not technically illegal", that's a very weak spot to be in.
So ur advocating for breaking the law if u personally think the law is immortal?
Isn't that exactly what the jan6 insurrectionists where doing?
Or are you the arbiter of morality and everyone else immoral?
Eat your cake or have it u can't have both.
It's 1950. A black man is sitting at an all white's counter. Is what he's doing wrong? You're on the jury. Do you convict?