[National Guard Deployed] L.A. Protesters Clash With Immigration Agents Again

Anti Federalist said:
Click to expand...


There are no non-lethal rounds, only less-lethal. Never point a weapon at something you do not believe you have the legal right to kill. This was use of deadly force and I sure hope there was a cosmic-scale lawsuit filed as a result of this incident. They are entitled to millions in compensatory damages, as I see it, and there should be a judgment against the state for billions in punitive damages.
 
Before she became LA Mayor, Karen Bass was Vice Chair of the the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that has been orchestrating color revolutions around the world, funded by USAID:
www.blackagendareport.com

Congresswoman Karen Bass and the Will to Intervene | Black Agenda Report

Congresswoman Karen Bass is running for mayor of Los Angeles. She's also Vice Chair of the NED, the CIA's soft power arm. She epitomizes everythng that is wrong with the Black political class.
www.blackagendareport.com www.blackagendareport.com
 
6848e082b89f4.webp
 
Madison320 said:
That doesn't make sense to me. If the federal government won't let the state handle a protest, why would they let the state secede?
Click to expand...

The statement to which you are referring wasn't about what the feds would or wouldn't "let" them do.

It was about what the state ought to (at least try to) do - and even that was presented as part of an "either-or" alternative.

You can disagree with it if you like, of course - but there's nothing about it that doesn't "make sense" on its own terms (i.e.., there are no inherent contradictions, etc.).
 
Occam's Banana said:
The statement to which you are referring wasn't about what the feds would or wouldn't "let" them do.

It was about what the state ought to (at least try to) do - and even that was presented as part of an "either-or" alternative.

You can disagree with it if you like, of course - but there's nothing about it that doesn't "make sense" on its own terms (i.e.., there are no inherent contradictions, etc.).
Click to expand...

Ok, but you can use that as an excuse for any federal overreach.

If California doesn’t want federal troop deployment they should secede.

If California doesn’t want a minimum wage they should secede.

If California doesn’t want forced vaccinations they should secede.

And since we all know the feds won't let a state secede, this is reality:

California gets federal troop deployment whether they like it or not.

California gets a minimum wage whether they like it or not.

California gets forced vaccinations whether they like it or not.

I'm totally against the protestors and if you turned the situation around the democrats wouldn't hesitate a second to use federal troops against a state. But it makes me uncomfortable to have the feds forcibly override the state.
 
Madison320 said:
Ok, but you can use that as an excuse for any federal overreach.

If California doesn’t want federal troop deployment they should secede.

If California doesn’t want a minimum wage they should secede.

If California doesn’t want forced vaccinations they should secede.
Click to expand...

Those are simply statements of what one thinks states should do under those circumstances.

And I agree with them - California should indeed secede (and should be allowed to do so) if it doesn't want to abide under any of those things.

You can disagree if you like - that's fine - but they are not "excuse[s] for any federal overreach".

Madison320 said:
And since we all know the feds won't let a state secede, this is reality:

California gets federal troop deployment whether they like it or not.

California gets a minimum wage whether they like it or not.

California gets forced vaccinations whether they like it or not.
Click to expand...

No. We don't "all know" that.

(You could have said exactly the same thing about the prospects for secession in the Soviet Union before it happened.)
 
Occam's Banana said:
Those are simply statements of what one thinks states should do under those circumstances.

And I agree with them - California should indeed secede (and should be allowed to do so) if it doesn't want to abide under any of those things.

You can disagree if you like - that's fine - but they are not "excuse[s] for any federal overreach".
Click to expand...

Ah well, at least I know Ron Paul agrees with me.
 
Occam's Banana said:
The statement to which you are referring wasn't about what the feds would or wouldn't "let" them do.
Click to expand...
But what the feds would or wouldn't let them do factors into it.

"If California doesn't like federal troops being deployed in California, they should secede."

Well, if they did secede that would result in federal troops being deployed in California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top