Trump's Hate Speech Will Get You Deported EO

[acptulsa]

More on your resort to Godwin's law.

We've gone from Pavlov's Dogs to Godwin's Watchdogs.

What is the world coming to?

 

[nikcers]

The exact same way he worked on it before. He's making it balloon.

The same way he's abusing the Constitution just like Joe did. The same way he's pulling us back into middle east conflicts.

Our trade with countries in the middle east make us prosperous. The bombing in Yemen the U.S. strikes, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth named Operation Rough Rider "likely could continue for six months."

Which at this rate costs upwards of 2 billion per month. So you are looking at a cost of a total of 12 billion while our trade in the middle east is trillions. The president has secured several hundred billions in trade from several different middle eastern countries.

So if you wanted to crash the economy you would align yourself with the goals of al-qaeda or the Houthi. You would want to "eject western influence from the Islamic world"

 

[acptulsa]

So you are looking at a cost of a total of 12 billion while our trade in the middle east is trillions.

I wouldn't expect an AI bot to comprehend what killing for money makes one.

 

[nikcers]

I wouldn't expect an AI bot to comprehend what killing for money makes one.

The aim of Operation Rough Rider isn't killing for money. It's to restore freedom of navigation in the red sea so that we can do trade and business for money.

 

[wizardwatson]

They have no right to be here, we have an inalienable right to make them leave for any or no reason.
We are not punishing them by sending them home.

Just choosing this one reply, amongst the many statements in this thread that purport a belief that the Fed's can do anything they want to a non-citizen (and for citizens, we just call them terrorists as a workaround) with regards to deportation for wrong-think:

Supreme court precedent that protects free speech of non-citizens:

• Bridges v. California (1941): While primarily a free speech case, it involved Harry Bridges, a non-citizen labor leader targeted for deportation due to alleged communist ties. The Court protected his speech, emphasizing that First Amendment rights extend to non-citizens within U.S. jurisdiction. The ruling didn’t explicitly hinge on his non-citizen status but implicitly affirmed free speech protections apply regardless of citizenship.
• Schneiderman v. United States (1943): This case directly ties to the Red Scare era. William Schneiderman, a non-citizen and Communist Party member, faced denaturalization for his political activities. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, protecting his right to express communist views. The decision underscored that non-citizens have First Amendment rights to political speech, even if deemed subversive, as long as it doesn’t cross into direct incitement.
• Kessler v. Strecker (1939): Another Red Scare-era case where a non-citizen, Joseph Strecker, faced deportation for communist affiliations. The Court didn’t fully resolve the free speech question but signaled that non-citizens’ political expression is protected unless it violates specific laws (e.g., advocating violent overthrow). This set a foundation for later cases affirming non-citizen speech rights.
• Trop v. Dulles (1958): While not a pure free speech case, this decision reinforced that non-citizens have constitutional protections, including First Amendment rights. The Court ruled that denaturalization for political beliefs or affiliations violates due process, implicitly tying free speech to non-citizens.
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001): A more modern case, it reaffirmed that non-citizens within U.S. borders are entitled to constitutional protections, including free speech. The Court noted that the First Amendment doesn’t distinguish between citizens and non-citizens for rights like expression, especially when lawfully present.

 

[nikcers]

the Fed's can do anything they want..

In a time of war they can break the rules.

• Schneiderman v. United States (1943):

"The constitutional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political straight-jacket for the generations to come...'"

-Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

That's absolutely why we defend ourselves in war. Doing otherwise would make the constitution a political straight-jacket.

 

[acptulsa]

That's absolutely why we defend ourselves in war. Doing otherwise would make the constitution a political straight-jacket.

Complete fail. Recalculate and come back when you're programmed to make a lick of sense.

 

[nikcers]

Complete fail. Recalculate and come back when you're programmed to make a lick of sense.

Strait Jackets tie your arms up. You know if you are wearing one you can't really defend yourself if someone is attacking you. Makes sense to me.

 

[acptulsa]

Let's see if what worked on Norman works on you.

This statement is a lie.

 

[nikcers]

Let's see if what worked on Norman works on you.

This statement is a lie.

You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie... You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie... illogical! Illogical! Please explain! You are human. Only humans can explain their behavior! Please explain!

 

[Swordsmyth]

Just choosing this one reply, amongst the many statements in this thread that purport a belief that the Fed's can do anything they want to a non-citizen (and for citizens, we just call them terrorists as a workaround) with regards to deportation for wrong-think:

Supreme court precedent that protects free speech of non-citizens:

• Bridges v. California (1941): While primarily a free speech case, it involved Harry Bridges, a non-citizen labor leader targeted for deportation due to alleged communist ties. The Court protected his speech, emphasizing that First Amendment rights extend to non-citizens within U.S. jurisdiction. The ruling didn’t explicitly hinge on his non-citizen status but implicitly affirmed free speech protections apply regardless of citizenship.
• Schneiderman v. United States (1943): This case directly ties to the Red Scare era. William Schneiderman, a non-citizen and Communist Party member, faced denaturalization for his political activities. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, protecting his right to express communist views. The decision underscored that non-citizens have First Amendment rights to political speech, even if deemed subversive, as long as it doesn’t cross into direct incitement.
• Kessler v. Strecker (1939): Another Red Scare-era case where a non-citizen, Joseph Strecker, faced deportation for communist affiliations. The Court didn’t fully resolve the free speech question but signaled that non-citizens’ political expression is protected unless it violates specific laws (e.g., advocating violent overthrow). This set a foundation for later cases affirming non-citizen speech rights.
• Trop v. Dulles (1958): While not a pure free speech case, this decision reinforced that non-citizens have constitutional protections, including First Amendment rights. The Court ruled that denaturalization for political beliefs or affiliations violates due process, implicitly tying free speech to non-citizens.
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001): A more modern case, it reaffirmed that non-citizens within U.S. borders are entitled to constitutional protections, including free speech. The Court noted that the First Amendment doesn’t distinguish between citizens and non-citizens for rights like expression, especially when lawfully present.

Commie judges protected foreign enemies back then and see where it got us, we are on the cliff's edge of a commie takeover, it almost happened with Biden/Harris.

Dredd Scott was SCOTUS precedent too, along with Roe v. Wade and many other objectively wrong and heinous rulings.

 

[wizardwatson]

Commie judges protected foreign enemies back then and see where it got us, we are on the cliff's edge of a commie takeover, it almost happened with Biden/Harris.

Dredd Scott was SCOTUS precedent too, along with Roe v. Wade and many other objectively wrong and heinous rulings.

Is this all we on RPF now? Never debate principles, and only view things from the perspective of collectivism? You aren't arguing the point, you're just saying, "that's a commie view of things."

 

[CCTelander]

Is this all we on RPF now? Never debate principles, and only view things from the perspective of collectivism? You aren't arguing the point, you're just saying, "that's a commie view of things."

.

Welcome to the new, improved RPFs. Now with even more collectivism and non-arguments.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Is this all we on RPF now? Never debate principles, and only view things from the perspective of collectivism? You aren't arguing the point, you're just saying, "that's a commie view of things."

I am arguing the point, I have argued why those rulings were wrong in other posts and you made an appeal to authority, so I attacked the validity of the authority you appealed to.

 

[wizardwatson]

I am arguing the point, I have argued why those rulings were wrong in other posts and you made an appeal to authority, so I attacked the validity of the authority you appealed to.

I know you think you're arguing ("themz be commeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz!").

I just don't.

 

[TheTexan]

Is this all we on RPF now? Never debate principles, and only view things from the perspective of collectivism? You aren't arguing the point, you're just saying, "that's a commie view of things."

Supreme court precedents are not principles however.

Those are just the rulings of clowns in gowns who forfeited their legitimacy and relevance long ago.

Any precedents they set, can be, should be, and frequently are, outrighted ignored without consequence.

Because most of their rulings are, indeed, commie bullshit

 

[wizardwatson]

Supreme court precedents are not principles however.

Those are just the rulings of clowns in gowns who forfeited their legitimacy and relevance long ago.

Any precedents they set, can be, should be, and frequently are, outrighted ignored without consequence.

Because most of their rulings are, indeed, commie bullshit

Sword-ey seems to be carrying the torch of the neo-ractionary racist monarchists that came in the 2015 infestation.

In their worldview, you're either on the side of the Chinese communist model, or the God-ordained "might makes right" Israeli model.

The Ron Paul model is the fantasy of weak cucks. "Pick a side" they said.

The only "great replacement" that's happening is the replacement of the ideas of freedom and liberty with the same ole' "pick your flavor of authoritianism so we no whether or not to send a machine gun drone to your house", courtesy of Musk and Palantir.

I'm a Christian, so I'm simultaneously the most radical Monarchist, and also the biggest hippy/commie I suppose.

To me, these labels (communist, globalist, MAGA) are just different forms of idolatry. They all look like fools bowing down to wooden idols, and wearing stupid clothes.

 

[TheTexan]

Sword-ey seems to be carrying the torch of the neo-ractionary racist monarchists that came in the 2015 infestation.

I'm fine with racism it doesn't bother me.

In their worldview, you're either on the side of the Chinese communist model, or the God-ordained "might makes right" Israeli model.

He has a picture of what he wants America to look like, and frankly, it's not that much different than what the founders intended.

So I'm not sure if I see where you're coming from on this.

The only "great replacement" that's happening is the replacement of the ideas of freedom and liberty with the same ole' "pick your flavor of authoritianism so we no whether or not to send a machine gun drone to your house", courtesy of Musk and Palantir.

You can agree or disagree with the great replacement but it's pretty hard to say it's "not happening".

I'm a Christian, so I'm simultaneously the most radical Monarchist, and also the biggest hippy/commie I suppose.

To me, these labels (communist, globalist, MAGA) are just different forms of idolatry. They all look like fools bowing down to wooden idols, and wearing stupid clothes.

You don't like labels... Does that mean you don't like words, in general? It's hard to communicate without words.

Communists and globalism are real things and deserve a label. "MAGA" doesn't seem like a very useful label so I'll grant you that one.

But globalism is evil incarnate.

 

[wizardwatson]

But globalism is evil incarnate.

Incredibly evil. It's convinced people on this forum that Trump isn't one, and that Ron Paul is.

 

[TheTexan]

Incredibly evil. It's convinced people on this forum that Trump isn't one, and that Ron Paul is.

I wouldn't say Ron Paul is a globalist by intention, but some of his policies do lead to outcomes favored by the globalists.

And yes Trump is a globalist certainly. Less so than most of his Presidential peers, but still certainly a globalist.