Jesse Ventura endorsed Harris/Walz

[Anti Federalist]

The plain-bellied sneeches and the star-bellied sneeches have separate truths and separate facts which are not to be shared outside their respective groups.

Yawn...so very tiresome.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So Jesse Ventura is still angry that Trump criticized/attacked John McCain.

https://x.com/ClownWorld_/status/1822213480562262280

Seems like Ventura had been blackmailed. This is not the same Ventura who claimed to be a "Truth Seeker"

Ventura has lost his mind. He is completely devoid of rational or critical thought.

 

[LibertyEagle]

PAF quoted Ventura's lies about the riots and Trump, that's him endorsing the lies, since he didn't bother to dispute them.

I agree. He may not have intended how it came out. I hope, anyway.

 

[PAF]

I agree. He may not have intended how it came out. I hope, anyway.

I stand by every single word that I said. You can refer to Post #46 to clear up any misunderstanding.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I stand by every single word that I said. You can refer to Post #46 to clear up any misunderstanding.

Using something from NBC as a positive substantive source is what I take issue with.

 

[PAF]

Using something from NBC as a positive substantive source is what I take issue with.

Blah blah blah. Who cares.

All newz outlets slant/add/omit one way or the other. It's the 4th branch of government, after all. What I do is cross-reference information and look for verifiable facts, which in some cases even leads to follow the money.

But, for some it is easier to take the "nationalist" approach to things than to act/think individually, as long as it benefits "your side". AmIRight?

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, the principle we were talking about is no centralized federal policing or U.S. troops used against U.S. citizens.

That principle you espoused sounds real good. Too bad not everyone can look at someone's hair color and count their piercings, and instantly determine whether or not they're guilty of something quite the way you can.

You mean like JFK did in wasn’t it, Alabama?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Blah blah blah. Who cares.

All newz outlets slant/add/omit one way or the other. It's the 4th branch of government, after all. What I do is cross-reference information and look for verifiable facts, which in some cases even leads to follow the money.

But, for some it is easier to take the "nationalist" approach to things than to act/think individually, as long as it benefits "your side". AmIRight?

What “side” would that be?

 

[PAF]

What “side” would that be?

Well, I don't know for certain, but you have eluded to supporting the candidate which is bragging/promoting a "National" American University, Federally-funded National Local LEO Immunity, and Federally-funded National "Stop and Frisk", among other agenda items.

But, I could be, wrong... ?

 

[acptulsa]

You mean like JFK did in wasn’t it, Alabama?

Are you throwing a dead guy in my face, now?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Are you throwing a dead guy in my face, now?

Not throwing him anywhere. Just stating what JFK did.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think Ron Paul used teleprompters and I don't recall him ever saying anything so cringeworthy. I get your point. I don't think candidates have to be perfect. I don't support Trump for numerous reasons but I have nothing in general against people who do. TBH I don't have anything against people who support Kamala either, I'm just not one of them. On the specific clip posted in the OP I agree with Jesse Ventura that not deploying to Iraq again is not in and of itself a strike against Mr. Waltz. But in the longer clip not in the OP, Jesse Ventura said he supported Kamala because he wanted to see a "black woman candidate" elected president before he died, which is a stupid reason to vote for someone but oh well. And....I think that setiment is why Donald Trump, much to the chagrin of Naomi Wolf, took Kamala Harris to task for claiming to be "Indian" as opposed to claiming to be black or even Indian and black when she ran for Senate. Hell, even Tger Woods called himself "Cablanasian" acknowledging has some African American backgournd as opposed to just saying he was "Asian."

I think the issue is that he claimed to have been in combat. That appears to not be the truth. Just listened to an interview with Tulsi and that is what she was saying.

Personally, I think all of those “wars” were stupid, but he used him being in combat to substantiate his wanting to grab guns.

 

[jmdrake]

You mean like JFK did in wasn’t it, Alabama?

You're talking about this?

https://www.al.com/birmingham-news-stories/2013/09/kennedy_federalized_national_g.html

Kennedy federalized National Guard to integrate Alabama public schools (Sept. 10, 1963)​

I love [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] but his argument in this thread about Trump using the National Guard in Washington DC has me all kind of confused. He's right about the Dick Act. (I'll be honest I had never looked that up) which allows the National Guard to be deployed outside the U.S. (See: https://history.army.mil/documents/1901/root-ng.htm). Then he quoted an NBC article about the National Guard being deployed inside the U.S. which has nothing to do with the Dick Act from what I can tell. But I don't see anywhere that PAF called the George Floyd protests "nonviolent" despite [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION]'s protestations to the contrary. (I guess he's talking about PAF highlighting NBC saying that some nonviolent protestors were injured? If so, then SS is wrong to object because some of the George Floyd protestors clearly WERE non violent and some WERE NOT. Some of the January 6th protestors WERE non violent and some WERE NOT! It's sad that people pretend that there side was 100% peaceful and the other side was 100% violent).

Anyhow, Washington D.C. isn't a state and isn't part of a state so it has no governor who can call out the National Guard to deal with civil unrest. And while the not so peaceful protests were no more a "foreign attack on the nation's capital" than was January 6th, it still was an obvious case of civil unrest that frankly the mayor of DC failed to handle. Yep it would be best if the local police kept the peace and that's true in all situations. But the authority to call up the D.C. National Guard rests with the president. https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/#:~:text=This authority to activate the,reports only to the President.

 

[jmdrake]

I think the issue is that he claimed to have been in combat. That appears to not be the truth. Just listened to an interview with Tulsi and that is what she was saying.

Personally, I think all of those “wars” were stupid, but he used him being in combat to substantiate his wanting to grab guns.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[LibertyEagle]

LOL

Violent insurrection triggers this:

The history of the Insurrection Act dates back all the way to 1797, and the legislative record is so long and tortured that it’s woeful to contemplate. Suffice to say that in the 21st century, the Insurrection Act has been pleasantly re-titled “The Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act” and codified in four sections of the US Code:

10 USC § 251 Federal Aid for State Governments

10 USC § 252 Use of Militia and Armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority

10 USC § 253 Interference with State and Federal Law

10 USC § 254 Proclamation to Disperse

Of the four provisions, the most recent and the most powerful is 10 USC § 253, which was written in 2006. This is the one that liberal pundits always forget to mention when they blab about Posse Comitatus and governors. It reads:

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 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 opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

That’s powerful language! Consider:

The authority is vested solely in the President. He does not need the invitation of state governors to intervene, nor does he need the approval of the Supreme Court. Older provisions of the Insurrection Act required either a governor or a judicial proceeding to authorize its use, but these limits were purposefully removed by Congress in § 253.

There is no time limit on the President’s activities. Older versions of the Insurrection Act limited the use of force to brief periods of time and then required legislative approval. Those limits, too, are also gone.

The President is allowed to use any means that he (and again, he needs no one else) considers necessary. This includes using the armed forces (which enables him to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act) and using the militia (which we’ll discuss in more detail below).

The President’s ability to use force isn’t restricted to actual rebellion or insurgency. He can act against merely unlawful combinations and conspiracies. To be clear: If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops.

More at: https://macris.substack.com/p/trump-at-the-rubicon


PAF and now you are taking the side of the death to America insurrectionists and their leftist propagandists.

Trump did 100% the right thing.

Although they are being rude as hell, the point is that it is dangerous to any kind of liberty to use federal troops against American citizens. Posse Comitatus may not seem like a big deal now, but it surely used to be. I understand they have changed some laws, but that doesn’t mean they are good changes.

Believe me, I understand. I remember what was going on during the “summer of love”; the burning, the looting, the murders. It should have been the Governors handling it and if necessary, reaching out for help. That didn’t happen. I do not think the federal government should rebuild for them. Because the citizenry in those states need to feel the consequences of the POS they elected for Governor.

This crap has been going on for a long time. JFK sent the actual military to Alabama. And I believe they were used again with Katrina and actually confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens in their own homes. And every time we ok it, it emboldens them to do it again. As bad as they may be, we want our police to be local. We never want our military to be used against American citizens.

 

[jmdrake]

Although they are being rude as hell, the point is that it is dangerous to any kind of liberty to use federal troops against American citizens. Posse Comitatus may not seem like a big deal now, but it surely used to be. I understand they have changed some laws, but that doesn’t mean they are good changes.

Believe me, I understand. I remember what was going on during the “summer of love”; the burning, the looting, the murders. It should have been the Governors handling it and if necessary, reaching out for help. That didn’t happen. I do not think the federal government should rebuild for them. Because the citizenry in those states need to feel the consequences of the POS they elected for Governor.

This crap has been going on for a long time. JFK sent the actual military to Alabama. And I believe they were used again with Katrina and actually confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens in their own homes. And every time we ok it, it emboldens them to do it again. As bad as they may be, we want our police to be local. We never want our military to be used against American citizens.

True. But D.C. has no governor so the president stands in for the governor for deploying the National Guard to D.C. But here's the scary part. Trump is trying to take credit for deploying the National Guard to Minneapolis, when he actual did not have the right to do that and apparently did not do that.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/28/politics/fact-check-minnesota-trump-speech-national-guard/index.html

 

[PAF]

You're talking about this?

https://www.al.com/birmingham-news-stories/2013/09/kennedy_federalized_national_g.html

Kennedy federalized National Guard to integrate Alabama public schools (Sept. 10, 1963)​

I love [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] but his argument in this thread about Trump using the National Guard in Washington DC has me all kind of confused. He's right about the Dick Act. (I'll be honest I had never looked that up) which allows the National Guard to be deployed outside the U.S. (See: https://history.army.mil/documents/1901/root-ng.htm). Then he quoted an NBC article about the National Guard being deployed inside the U.S. which has nothing to do with the Dick Act from what I can tell. But I don't see anywhere that PAF called the George Floyd protests "nonviolent" despite [MENTION=65299]Swordsmyth[/MENTION]'s protestations to the contrary. (I guess he's talking about PAF highlighting NBC saying that some nonviolent protestors were injured? If so, then SS is wrong to object because some of the George Floyd protestors clearly WERE non violent and some WERE NOT. Some of the January 6th protestors WERE non violent and some WERE NOT! It's sad that people pretend that there side was 100% peaceful and the other side was 100% violent).

Anyhow, Washington D.C. isn't a state and isn't part of a state so it has no governor who can call out the National Guard to deal with civil unrest. And while the not so peaceful protests were no more a "foreign attack on the nation's capital" than was January 6th, it still was an obvious case of civil unrest that frankly the mayor of DC failed to handle. Yep it would be best if the local police kept the peace and that's true in all situations. But the authority to call up the D.C. National Guard rests with the president. https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/#:~:text=This authority to activate the,reports only to the President.

Love ya too, bro ;-)

I may have gone slightly off topic to point out the danger of nationwide Immunity, and that sending in unidentified leo caused more mayhem than necessary, which seems to be ok and forgiven when "their side" does it. We are in dangerous times right now, where folks on both sides are abandoning the Bill of Rights, and are promoting anti-liberty "solutions" which are against the very ideals that we have been fighting for, and since Ron Paul entered the stage decades ago. They can't see it because of the double MASKS blinders they have on.

 

[LibertyEagle]

True. But D.C. has no governor so the president stands in for the governor for deploying the National Guard to D.C. But here's the scary part. Trump is trying to take credit for deploying the National Guard to Minneapolis, when he actual did not have the right to do that and apparently did not do that.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/28/politics/fact-check-minnesota-trump-speech-national-guard/index.html

Yup, I agree.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Love ya too, bro ;-)

I may have gone slightly off topic to point out the danger of nationwide Immunity, and that sending in unidentified leo caused more mayhem than necessary, which seems to be ok and forgiven when "their side" does it. We are in dangerous times right now, where folks on both sides are abandoning the Bill of Rights, and are promoting anti-liberty "solutions" which are against the very ideals that we have been fighting for, and since Ron Paul entered the stage decades ago. They can't see it because of the double MASKS blinders they have on.

Actually NOT. As I have said numerous times, THERE IS NO LIBERTY CANDIDATE RUNNING THIS TIME. You choose to display your dissatisfaction by not voting. Your choice. I have chosen to do what I can to keep the 2 clearly Communist candidates out of office. So I will be voting for Trump, with all his warts and hopefully, he will be elected. Then do whatever I can to criticize those things that I don’t agree with.

 

[PAF]

Actually NOT. As I have said numerous times, THERE IS NO LIBERTY CANDIDATE RUNNING THIS TIME. You choose to display your dissatisfaction by not voting. Your choice. I have chosen to do what I can to keep the 2 clearly Communist candidates out of office. So I will be voting for Trump, with all his warts and hopefully, he will be elected. Then do whatever I can to criticize those things that I don’t agree with.

It's designed that way.

You don't need my permission. Do what you want. They thank you for your consent.