Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 06/06/25

1812813814816818

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,138 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Here is the video footage of the cop shooting the news reporter whilst she was doing her live broadcast

    https://bsky.app/profile/luckytran.com/post/3lr5amqrwlc2j



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Detritus70


    If the order is wrong you better fcuking refuse to carry it out. And in the Third Reich Jews were legally declared people of second class. Non-persons. Subhuman. That was all legal. If you were ordered to round up Jewish people and transport them to a concentration camp or send them to the gas chambers, those were legal orders.

    Take it from a German. You can be one of the bad guys simply by being a coward. You don't have to be evil. But if you take part you're every bit as guilty as everyone else.

    Do I really have to say it again?

    "I was just following orders" is *NOT* a valid excuse.

    Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,876 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭yagan


    We knew he'd turn to creating domestic confrontation when he got bored of his tariffs being lampooned.

    I remember Bush Jr being criticized for not sending in the national guard after hurricane Katrina, but the state governor had to make the request.

    California is one of the states with a legal case against the tariffs so sending in the national guard is very much personal vengeance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Baba Yaga


    holy crap!!! that had to hurt!…was in Derry back in the day with a cousin of mine,happened to wander into the wrong place at the wrong time,we came around a corner just as the ruc loosed of a volley of those,one got him in the ankle and broke it…


    "They gave me an impossible task,one which they said I wouldnt return from...."

    "You are him…the one they call the "Baba Yaga"…

    yo! donnie vonshitzinpants,vlad putin,benji netanyahu..you sirs are the skidmarks on the jocks of humanity!!!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,313 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The precedent that matters here is the fact that 'I was just following orders' is not a defence when you're being brought up in the Hague to answer for your role in the fascist takeover

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    Prick aimed for her,he should be charged for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭yagan


    More damming is lining up your "I was just following orders" excuse before you've been given orders you know are tyrannical.

    A good portion of the US knew Trump brings social chaos and they voted for more of that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,914 ✭✭✭Glaceon




  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,138 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Trump will let his goons brutalise the population



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭crushproof


    Some wild scenes already of police brutality. Always interested me to know what percentage of US law enforcement officers (both local and federal) back Trump.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,313 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The US constitution is being violated right now by ICE

    ICE is fomenting the civil unrest and Trump is calling in the NG to facilitate ICE
    It is absolutely unconstititional
    Which parts of the constitution are being broken?
    Take your pick

    Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Seizure

    The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures” and generally requires a judicial warrant supported by probable cause for arrests.

    • Warrantless street arrests without probable cause are presumptively unconstitutional.
    • Detaining someone arbitrarily (e.g. without charges or judicial review) constitutes an unlawful seizure.

    2. Fifth Amendment – Due Process Clause

    The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    • Detaining and transferring individuals without trial, access to legal counsel, or judicial proceedings violates this clause.
    • Sending them abroad (i.e., extraordinary rendition) without legal process bypasses all procedural safeguards.

    3. Sixth Amendment – Right to a Fair Trial

    The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, legal counsel, and to be informed of charges.

    • If the government detains someone and does not bring them to trial, or deprives them of access to counsel, it's a clear Sixth Amendment violation.

    4. Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment

    If the individuals are transferred abroad to face torture or inhumane treatment, this could violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.

    • U.S. courts have ruled that knowingly transferring detainees to face torture elsewhere is unconstitutional (e.g. Boumediene v. Bush, 2008).

    5. Habeas Corpus – Article I, Section 9

    The U.S. Constitution also protects the right to habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention.

    • This right may only be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion where public safety requires it.
    • Indefinite detention or rendition without access to courts violates this foundational protection.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    Its bizarre the cops unions backed for Trumps re-election when one of his campaign promises was to pardon all of the J6 rioters who attacked the Capitol police.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,313 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The germans didn't recognise the ICC before they were brought before it either.

    This is following the fascist takeover playbook, step by step, it so predictable. Nobody can justifiably say they didn't know what Trump and his regime are planning, only that they are hoping that someone else will do something to stop it (if they're not outright supportive of it)

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,313 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    This is disgusting, everyone in that group of police are fully on board with Trump's war against democracy.

    Trump has ordered the police to brutalise protestors. He has come out and told them to beat the protestors 'if they spit on you'
    They can claim that any protestor 'spat on them' to justify any violence

    Everyone in LA who has a camera on a drone should be out filming these thugs and documenting the fascism. Its the only chance they have. If the public at large can see this for what it is before its too late.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,167 ✭✭✭✭briany


    People had better stop looking to the system to enforce the U.S. constitution because large parts of it are currently controlled by people who have professed/exhibited a personal loyalty to Trump. This is a key difference between this term and his previous one. In his previous term, a lot of his cabinet picks appeared to be advised by establishment Republicans who, whatever else one can say about them, didn't seem prepared to let the U.S. lapse into a full on authoritarian dictatorship. So, you still had people who pretty much prioritised the U.S. constitution above whatever crazy orders Trump might try to give.

    Trump's government and all their enablers will call anyone who rises against him to enforce the constitution a 'criminal'. Tyrannical governments always do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    For the sake of argument/debate here, I believe that Trump's ordering the Nat Gd troops in on the ground was not to do with keeping law and order alive on the ground in LA, it was more so to score a political point with the Governor because Trump's ego has been upset by recent political happenings in Washington and he needed something to lash out at and prove he's the boss.

    That being so, it calls into legitimate question the legal validity of the order he gave for the posting of Nat Gd units to LA. The notion that Trump has a care for the stability of law and order in the US is laughable. He wants the order part of that to be what he says it is, not what the concept of law and order is in most peoples minds and books. He's an animal gone rogue on the US. The law allows for the control of animals gone rogue.

    Post edited by aloyisious at


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,938 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    This highlights the most egregious flaw with the US presidential system IMO. That there is no means for a democratic change of the Executive once elected. That for 4 years, the country is tied to the whims of whomever is in power barring invocation of the 25th amendment and even at that? It's not a change in executive, it's a refresh with the No2 promoted.

    There's no need for the Executive to maintain a congressional majority when they can rule via edict, sorry EO and when SCOTUS has shown itself to be wholly compliant. It is a system that has up until 2016, worked but, only because no one really sought to actively push the accepted boundaries not indeed against the separation of powers.

    However, Now a 2nd term President is railing against one pillar of government and actively ignoring their rulings. Whilst keeping Congress on such a short leash that they are irrelevant too.

    The usual counter argument in favour of why US style federal democracy works is that with staggered terms for Senators and biennial congressional elections, that the electorate gets to position the Congress as a counter to the Executive. Some also argue that the fragmentation of Federal, State, Local keeps people sufficiently busy with local issues. Like voting for school boards & county taxes, that the federal Govt plays only a small part in "real" life.

    That only works when Congress is treated as an equal partner in Govt and indeed, when policy is exercised via legislation rather than Executive Order.

    No system of Government is perfect but few systems have been undermined to the extent of the current US model and survived. Fewer still such inherently flawed systems have survived without facing actual revolution.

    Without serious overhaul of American political systems? This pattern of Executive extremism and societal risk will only continue.

    I don't know what shape that overhaul will take. Be it a new Constitutional Congress, some form of genuine political compromise and voter reform that reflects 1 person - 1 vote and that land doesn't vote. The exercise & control of both a political mandate & executive power have forever been altered and to some extent, placed beyond judicial oversight. How that is rectified? Is beyond my ken when I look at current political landscape in US.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,970 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Well, as far as I know, there has been no order declaring Jews in the US to be subhuman. Indeed, the Constitution prohibits such an order or law. (And enforcement of equal rights is a specified exemption to the prohibition on the use of the military in a law enforcement role via the Enforcement Acts of the 1870s, which of course itself came out of the Civil War which was somewhat related to the subject.)

    So again, shall we avoid the hyperbolic hypotheses and focus on something closer to what is going on in reality?

    It may seem cut and dry to you, but to the force, it's a little less so. Nothing going on is new. For example, take the first instance on your list. Do you think the warrantless arrests haven't made it to the court system over the last half century? The INA was enacted in the 1950s. (Clue, multiple federal courts have specifically looked at this question as far back as 1970). You may believe it to be unconstitutional and that the federal courts have gotten it wrong for decades, maybe they even have gotten it wrong, but it absolutely won't cut standard for a "reasonable person" to know it's unconstitutional.

    And in any case, the federal miltary is not involved in this. They have only been arresting where they have authority to arrest, like DoD property.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,167 ✭✭✭✭briany


    The most important aspect of any stable government, by far, is a stable public. There is no democratic system you can establish that will survive any significant length of time if there is extreme polarisation of political views and cynicism among the public. The only system you can really have is a pretty much unanswerable authoritarian type one i.e. a dictatorship or total monarchy who quells dissent with hard force, and expunges opposition through execution, imprisonment, deportation and 'reeducation'.

    If you want to re-establish a stable, or relatively stable, liberal democracy in the U.S., you have to do some very fundamental work to rebuild a broad public consensus. It's only when you have that foundation, that you can have a stable democratic system on top of it.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,152 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    This highlights the most egregious flaw with the US presidential system IMO. That there is no means for a democratic change of the Executive once elected. That for 4 years, the country is tied to the whims of whomever is in power barring invocation of the 25th amendment and even at that? It's not a change in executive, it's a refresh with the No2 promoted.

    But this is what the US electorate chose. We all knew it would happen in some shape or form. It is unfortunate that the Americans elected a moronic, narcissistic bully but if there was a means to remove him, what is to say that means couldn't have been used by Trump and his supporters to oust Biden or any other "normal" POTUS?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭yagan


    They knew he was a chaotic, moronic, narcissistic bully from his first term and they voted for four more years of that. Even when he lost against Biden he still got the largest losing candidate share of the vote ever.

    Roughly one third of the US electorate want the country to go up in flames.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,843 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    That's because they don't think they'll be the ones to get burned.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    It should also be pointed out the the latest polling in the US shows a majority (albeit a slender one) support Trumps immigration policies and current actions.

    Now that polling pre-dates the current unrest in LA along with Trumps response by a few days , but still.

    As is typical in the US what you see is extreme polarisation when you look at the detail.

    Overall it's about 53/54% support the current Immigration actions but for GOP voters it's 90%+ support and Democrats it's 90%+ against , with independents closer to 50:50



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,970 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Whilst I agree with the first paragraph in that the primary purpose was political, I don't think the second paragraph necessarily follows.

    Regardless of why he's willing to die on the California hill, the bottom line is that federal immigration enforcement is a long standing function of government, no matter how unpopular it may happen to be in that particular part of the US. Though there is supposedly ample civilian law enforcement in the area, the decision to make LA a proud sanctuary city and prohibit local law enforcement from working with ICE is itself primarily political, meaning that the feds are working with whatever assets they have themselves when they are faced with angry locals during their operations. Others have noted on this thread the absence of local law enforcement as ICE faced off with protestors.

    The federal government only has so many civilian agents, and Los Angeles is a large city. If the Feds are being told "you're on your own", which is well within the remit of California's state and local governments, then California is in little position to complain when the feds draft in whatever assets they can to do it on their own, which is well within their remit.

    Manpower does seem to have been the triggering factor. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/06/08/politics/trump-national-guard-decision



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,938 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The polarisation of the Electorate is a serious issue. It's one that is an issue elsewhere too but is tempered to an extent by electoral systems that don't rely on FPTP nor are reliant on a 2 party state (apart from the UK and the 2 party state there is near finished as far as Tories are concerned at least).

    Is it what they chose? Yes, any rational person looking at Trump from outside the US knew this was going to be a shít show.

    Yet, in the course of his campaign he repeatedly denied knowledge of project 2025. He demurred to the supremacy of the courts and did his utmost to present a veneer of "reasonableness" to demonstrate that he had both learned from the errors of his 1st term and that he would aim to more even handed in a new term.

    That "reasonable" Trump is the image that his campaign team spent the entirety of the campaign trying to hammer home and a very tame US media environment helped him do so.

    As to who's to say such a method of removal couldn't have been used against Biden or any other "normal" POTUS? No one, that's the point in a way. That governing should require the continuing consent of the governed. Not just their assent on a day in November that lasts 4 years regardless of how poorly the elected performs. That at the very least, a continuing congressional majority and the ability to enact legislation rather than rule by edict, is the sign of a functional democracy.

    If one cannot command a majority to pass legislation? Then in what purports to be a representative & democratic Republic? How can one govern legitimately?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,678 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    pushing around civilians whilst dressed for war is so honourable.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,210 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio




Advertisement