Trump ready to use American military on US soil. - So much to do before January 21st.

[jimidean2011]

More MAGA snowflake, cupcake, lil' buttercup tears a'flowing.

"Boo-hoo-hoo, they're so mean to us. Waaaaaaaaah."

Still a tad upset I see? Not to worry, in approximately 1500 days Trump will be in your rearview mirror. Don't hold your breathe

 

[Anbarandy]

What is a straw man argument?
A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light.

The straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy, which means that the flaw lies with the arguer’s method of arguing rather than the flaws of the argument itself. The straw man fallacy avoids the opponent’s actual argument and instead argues against an inaccurate caricature of it. By doing this, the straw man fallacy is a fallacy of relevance, because with it the arguer doesn’t engage with the relevant components of their opposer’s position.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/rhetorical-devices/straw-man-fallacy/

Hey Mr. Strawman meet the epitome of a Straw man argument below:

Are you calling the majority of the American voting public racist and cruel?
It sounds like you are.
Only someone crazy and undemocratic would make that claim.
Or is this one of those times where you make a claim and then a few posts later conveniently forget that you made the claim?
Only someone crazy would do that.

Epic faceplant post in addition to delivering repeated 360-degree haymakers to oneself.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

What is a straw man argument?
A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light.

The straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy, which means that the flaw lies with the arguer’s method of arguing rather than the flaws of the argument itself. The straw man fallacy avoids the opponent’s actual argument and instead argues against an inaccurate caricature of it. By doing this, the straw man fallacy is a fallacy of relevance, because with it the arguer doesn’t engage with the relevant components of their opposer’s position.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/rhetorical-devices/straw-man-fallacy/

Or just read your previous post.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

His most significant campaign promise somehow gets overlooked by someone against mass deportation that votes for him anyway? Not likely.

Wanting to deal with illegal immigration or border security is different from specific support for mass deportations.
Even I support reducing illegal immigration and strengthening border security.
Doesn't mean I support mass deportations.
Dealing with illegal immigration and border security does not have to result in a humanitarian crisis.

 

[Frankfooter]

The majority of his supporters, the MAGATWATS are part of his cult. He can do no wrong, they will cheer him on even if they can't afford their home and sleeping in a tent, they will scream Trump is the best in the whole wide world.

I dunno, when the chinese MAGA hats go up $20 because of the tariffs they might start clueing in.

 

[Valcazar]

If laws are just "words on paper", then he can murder someone and not get charged?

Yes.
But that's not a "words on paper" situation in that case.
The Supreme Court explicitly ruled that he can murder and not be charged.

The PCA is pretty clear.

It is.

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air 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.”

This is why he is talking about emergency declarations and the insurrection act, alien enemies act, and so on.
He can, also, clearly just demand Congress pass a law letting him use the military for this.
Given the general spinelessness of the GOP, I wouldn't expect them to say no.

He can do it with the mildest of fig leaves.
The question of how much he even thinks he needs fig leaves in his second term remains unknown.

But it's not an "emergency". There have been millions of illegal migrants in the USA for decades.

So what?
"That just shows people weren't treating it as the emergency it is."
See how easy this all is?

 

[squeezer]

I dunno, when the chinese MAGA hats go up $20 because of the tariffs they might start clueing in.

Let me put it this way, do you believe Mitch will turn on Trump if he has to pay an extra $20 for another MAGA hat?

 

[Valcazar]

The "how" is the most important question and has nothing to do with Trump. I've given you a suggestion. Clearly the current administration wants an increase in effort. So that means increased budget and manpower.

Spending money on it isn't an obstacle, in his mind.

Asked about the cost of his plan, he said, "It’s not a question of a price tag. It’s not — really, we have no choice. When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag."

(https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...no-price-tag-mass-deportation-plan-rcna179178)

 

[Skoob]

Hey Mr. Strawman meet the epitome of a Straw man argument below:

Epic faceplant post in addition to delivering repeated 360-degree haymakers to oneself.

Looks to me that you don't know what a strawman argument is.
You can go back to eating crayons now.

 

[Skoob]

Or just read your previous post.

Says the guy who doesn't know what a strawman argument is and rather than addressing his failed argument, he focuses on something else as a distraction.

 

[Skoob]

Wanting to deal with illegal immigration or border security is different from specific support for mass deportations.
Even I support reducing illegal immigration and strengthening border security.
Doesn't mean I support mass deportations.
Dealing with illegal immigration and border security does not have to result in a humanitarian crisis.

He campaigned on the fact that there would be mass deportations. The majority of the American voting public supported him as that was his primary campaign message.
If there are millions of illegal immigrants and he will work on deporting them, then can't that be described as a "mass deportation"?

You seem afflicted by particular words rather than the overall context.

 

[richaceg]

Wanting to deal with illegal immigration or border security is different from specific support for mass deportations.
Even I support reducing illegal immigration and strengthening border security.
Doesn't mean I support mass deportations.
Dealing with illegal immigration and border security does not have to result in a humanitarian crisis.

the "humanitarian crisis" happened, does that excuse people from just crossing the border illegally? since when can't you not be deported from illegally crossing the border? this is the logic that destroys countries that enjoy the freedom of being in a democracy. over a million illegal immigrants is putting a strain on the economy. feeding and housing individuals who don't contribute (doesn't pay taxes even if they work). I wish I could work and not pay taxes...

 

[mandrill]

It is.

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air 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.”

This is why he is talking about emergency declarations and the insurrection act, alien enemies act, and so on.
He can, also, clearly just demand Congress pass a law letting him use the military for this.
Given the general spinelessness of the GOP, I wouldn't expect them to say no.

He can do it with the mildest of fig leaves.
The question of how much he even thinks he needs fig leaves in his second term remains unknown.
So what?
"That just shows people weren't treating it as the emergency it is."
See how easy this all is?

He can't get 2/3 in the Senate and might well not get a majority in the House. He only has to lose a handful of GOP votes in the House on an issue of high principal that affects states' rights to lose.

 

[Valcazar]

He can't get 2/3 in the Senate and might well not get a majority in the House. He only has to lose a handful of GOP votes in the House on an issue of high principal that affects states' rights to lose.

He doesn't need 2/3 in the Senate (even if they didn't circumvent the filibuster, he would need 60 votes).

That's also only necessary if they decide they need a new law.
The Alien Enemies act and the Insurrection act are already laws.

Look, as Gaetz dropping out shows, he isn't going to win everything he tries.
But you really need to stop thinking "the rules say this therefore he can't do it" is an argument that holds any water.
Trump will try to do what he wants to do, regardless of the rules.
There is no magic force field stopping him because "it's not supposed to work that way".
He will be stopped if people manage to stop him.
That's it.

If you want to say you are sure he won't be able to deploy military troops to aid in deportation, that's fine.
But confidently saying it can't happen because Posse Comitatus is just you wishcasting.

 

[speakercontrols]

at least Trump wants to use it against illegal immigrants

ya.....I suspect there are bigger issues with using the military on native (heh) soil