The Next President is...

[brickhistory]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Ever heard of Posse Comitatus, or does the implicit racism on this forum simply enable you all to ignore the constitution and the law as long as the ends justify the means? 

LALALALA FOX NEWS TOLD ME WEVE BEEN INVADED, DADDY PLEASE INVOKE MARTIAL LAW.

Insurrection Act of 1807.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

[tac airlifter]

57 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I have significant issue with using an event that should be handled with law enforcement and/or natl guard as a way to overreach executive power unconstitutionally, and I am honestly appalled at this forum’s complacency about it.

I had to sift through several childish posts to find a sentence worth engaging, it'd be nice if you were more mature.

The problem with your quoted point is the police refuse to do anything because the mayor refuses to do anything because the governor refuses to do anything.  Fortunately we have a POTUS who disagrees with your opinion of constitutional limits, and unlike the LAPD will not allow this behavior.  I'm glad you agree these dudes should be stopped.
 

[kaputt]

3 hours ago, Banzai said:

or does the implicit racism on this forum 

 

That’s fucking hilarious when the current immigration problem was largely caused by a far left political movement that believed that importing as many dark sinned people as possible was the ticket to winning elections. Because apparently skin color has everything to do with how you vote. Now tell me who’s racist?

By the way, pulling the “you’re racist” card is the most clear way to know the person you’re arguing with is not someone worth spending time on. 

[HeloDude]

The post calling this forum/its members racist for disagreement of opinion has been removed.  If people are wondering where the line is, here’s an example.

[Biff_T]

Just one AC-130 would solve this.  

[TreeA10]

I'm not thrilled with the idea of using the military to get this under control but the city, county, and state leadership are unable or unwilling to use law enforcement to prevent destruction of property and attacks on Federal personnel executing their lawful duties.  Democrats have pandered to these people for so long, they think free speech is throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails.  FAFO.

[Lord Ratner]

I guess I don't understand the political motivation for deploying the national guard in Los Angeles. The Democrats have almost entirely been responsible for Republicans winning the last few cycles, because their governance inevitably blows up in the face of their constituencies. California and specifically San Francisco are good examples. Illegal immigration and the trans stuff is another good example. 

 

So why save the day when the governor and mayor are protesting your involvement? I feel like a better strategy would be to continue doing what the people elected Trump to do, which is beef up immigration enforcement, and if there's a riot in Los Angeles every time and a legal is detained, so be it. Wait for the riot to end, then go back in and detain another illegal. It should only take two or three of these riots before Los Angeles is brought to its knees, and then they can request the national guard from the president and allow Trump to swoop in and save the day.

 

I have no love for these "protestors," but California clearly does, so why not let them reap what they sow? If the fear is damage to Federal facilities, use it as justification to move as many federal facilities out of California as possible. Part of the reason the swamp exists is because all of the federal infrastructure is in the most liberal parts of the country. This would be a great excuse for bringing in some more balance.

Edited 4 hours ago by Lord Ratner

[Mole]

3 hours ago, Biff_T said:

Just one AC-130 would solve this.  

My solution 

[McJay Pilot]

10 hours ago, Banzai said:

Wrong, get better, be smarter, don’t be a sheep.

To be fair $1.17 billion in 2010 is the equivalent of $1.72 billion today. So it has increased, but relatively not that much. Not quibbling as even inflation adjusted the LAPD hasn’t lost money.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

To be fair $1.17 billion in 2010 is the equivalent of $1.72 billion today. So it has increased, but relatively not that much. Not quibbling as even inflation adjusted the LAPD hasn’t lost money.

Has the population of LA grown? Number of establishments and residences? Miles of roadways? 

 

I don't know the answers to those questions, but if they have increased, then an inflation-adjusted stable budget is effectively a cut.

Edited 1 hour ago by Lord Ratner