• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Kash Patel doesn't think a warrant should be required to spy on Americans

Dude most of the forum thinks you shouldn't need to a warrant to inspect womens genitals.

Without bodily autonomy what is left?
 
I agree with Amash's position, and I agree with him about the seriousness of this.

However, his claim that the Constitution requires a warrant, is simply factually false. The Constitution nowhere says that.
 
Amash is a loser and one of the dumbest people to wear the libertarian moniker. In today's hearing, the discussion was about intelligence gathering and the relevant case law. No court has ruled a warrant is required for the programs discussed. If amash wants to change that then win a court injunction, but he can't because all he knows is how to do is be a loser.
 
Amash is a loser and one of the dumbest people to wear the libertarian moniker. In today's hearing, the discussion was about intelligence gathering and the relevant case law. No court has ruled a warrant is required for the programs discussed. If amash wants to change that then win a court injunction, but he can't because all he knows is how to do is be a loser.

As a generalization, the govt work-around for the 4th Amendment or any Constitutional or God-given right is "standing".

"You think the govt has been spying on you without a warrant? Show and prove damages. You can't? You don't have standing, lawsuit dismissed."
"You think the govt has been censoring your speech? Show and prove damages. You can't? You don't have standing, lawsuit dismissed."
 
So Trumps FBI pick supports the NSA spying.
His NDI pick supports assassination of Soleimani and doesn't think Snowden deserves clemency.
His HHS pick believes that Warp Speed was good and is pro-vaccine.

...and people who still support these people think they are only lying to "get in power" where all the political pressure and compromises magically disappear.

...because they definitely were genuine when they were telling us these things before they joined Trump and would never lie to us. They're just lying to the deep state to get in power where they'll do a 180 and turn on the deep state they've compromised with.

Just trying to make sure I'm keeping up.
 
So Trumps FBI pick supports the NSA spying.
His NDI pick supports assassination of Soleimani and doesn't think Snowden deserves clemency.
His HHS pick believes that Warp Speed was good and is pro-vaccine.

...and people who still support these people think they are only lying to "get in power" where all the political pressure and compromises magically disappear.

...because they definitely were genuine when they were telling us these things before they joined Trump and would never lie to us. They're just lying to the deep state to get in power where they'll do a 180 and turn on the deep state they've compromised with.

Just trying to make sure I'm keeping up.

Its almost like after election once you get in, you become part of the swamp and you go against it.
 
Its almost like after election once you get in, you become part of the swamp and you go against it.

Ahhhh, kind of like the Pelosi congressional axiom. "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it."

Likewise, we have to join the swamp to know how to truly fight it. :rolleyes:

This cult is reminding me of the scene in Fight Club where Meatloaf dies. Tyler's crazy ass has a moment of clarity that he's made a huge error, but all it does is deepen the religion for his fanatic followers.



I feel the same about Trump. Even if he snapped out of his messianic complex, I doubt he can escape the role at this point. Like when Jack Sparrow became "God" to the cannibals in Dead Man's Chest.
 
Yes he has TDS and has shown a gross lack of strategic manuvering. But he is correct here because...

it doesn't need to be because the 4th Amendment requires it already.

How about we listen to Mike Lee instead of Loser Amash.

 
Amash is a loser and one of the dumbest people to wear the libertarian moniker. In today's hearing, the discussion was about intelligence gathering and the relevant case law. No court has ruled a warrant is required for the programs discussed. If amash wants to change that then win a court injunction, but he can't because all he knows is how to do is be a loser.

The primary reason why and how we have a government that acts far outside of its Constitutional limitations is because of the courts, not in spite of.

The main offender being the Supreme Fraud which exists to rubber stamp government power grabs.

Not to minimize occasions when they're simply reinventing the Constitution ie Qualified Immunity etc.
 
Why anyone is taking seriously what Trump's nominees say to get confirmed by the RINO infested Senate I will never understand.
 
Dude most of the forum thinks you shouldn't need to a warrant to inspect womens genitals.

Without bodily autonomy what is left?

Leave the kids and the women alone.

Don't try to go where you don't belong and nobody will challenge you.
 

Here is what the 4th Amendment says. Let's look at it together.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you can see anywhere in there that it says that a warrant is required to search the communications of Americans, or for that matter, anywhere that it mentions anything at all that the government is not permitted to do without a warrant, then please point that out. Because it plainly does not.
 
fwiw I don't think Patel is even REMOTELY qualified to serve as FBI director.

He's in there because he's part of the gang around Trump and made millions on bitcoin and Tesla stock.

The loyalty factor is why... but he does not belong there.
 
Here is what the 4th Amendment says. Let's look at it together.


If you can see anywhere in there that it says that a warrant is required to search the communications of Americans, or for that matter, anywhere that it mentions anything at all that the government is not permitted to do without a warrant, then please point that out. Because it plainly does not.

You've peddled this garbage before.The
Warrant is required to prove reasonableness, any unwarranted search is presumed unreasonable.
 
Back
Top