The Real timschochet

Link to me justifying violence?

Only in a police state.

The judge asked if there is ANY instance in which a court can challenge the President’s ability to call out the military or National Guard. Trump’s attorney: No. Never. It’s the President’s sole decision not subject to review.

Serious question: is there EVER, in your mind, a situation in which it’s justifiable to resist authority?

Javohl, mein herr! Sieg heil! When the authorities behave in an immoral fashion, the public has a duty and moral right to resist. Asking to see a warrant is perfectly justified.

The Trump administration is lying in court right now. They are claiming that Trump had to call out the National Guard because he was prevented from carrying out the law by a “violent insurrection” in Los Angeles. Just a complete fabrication.

It’s a great idea. Let’s do it.

It’s incredibly ironic that as I write this there is a live court case being fought in which Newsom is defending the state of California from a federal dictatorship, and yet some of you here are actually accusing Newsom himself of being a dictator. Only in the bizarro world of this forum where everything is twisted….

I dunno. I like that the guy asked to see a warrant ( @Hardcore troubadour’s idiocy notwithstanding he has every right to do so, so does everyone). I don’t like that he grabbed the guy. I don’t like ICE always acting like Gestapo thugs. None of this is a legal opinion.

He believes the legislature gives him the power to act otherwise. That doesn’t make him a dictator. It’s up to the courts to decide who’s right. So long as Newsom ultimately obeys the courts we’re fine. That’s exactly what I wrote about Trump as well. It’s only if you ignore the courts that it gets to dictator status.

Again it depends on the issue. It doesn’t always allow the voters to override the legislature. Sometimes, not always. It’s for the courts to decide.

It’s supposed to be. That was in jest and directed at @EternalShinyAndChrome who ends every argument with “It’s not even a question”.

Amazing that this post is coming from a guy who believes in every conspiracy theory out there.

I’ve always believed in the last few years that Iran is a country that would eventually topple its current regime. The people of Iran don’t want these Ayatollahs controlling every aspect of their lives. There’s a lot of dissension there and eventually the regime would disintegrate. But my concern now is that we are unifying them. Nothing makes a government more popular than being attacked.

I disagree with @RLLD almost all the time but I think you’re pushing it a little bit here. Despite Trump’s social media “we” the USA isn’t involved- at least not yet. There’s no US planes in the air, US pilots, drones etc. it’s all Israeli. And Rubio did make a pretty clear statement. Trump is being confusing but that’s his deal. Who the hell knows?

Let’s get back to the main point: IF Gavin Newsom decides to run for President in 2028 and IF he is elected, that will lead to a better and more prosperous United States- not just for myself, but for @TheNewGirl and @Strike and everybody else reading this. He is a clear improvement over what we have now. I don’t even think it’s a question.

OK let’s try this again, slowly. 1. I don’t want a dictator. I want an elected legislature passing laws that the governor can sign or veto. 2. I understand we have propositions. I don’t like that idea. If I had my way I would do away with them. In the meantime I have to live with them. But if, as in the case you cited, a proposition says one thing and the legislature says another, then the courts need to adjudicate it. I don’t believe that the proposition necessarily takes precedence over the legislature, and I certainly don’t believe that if it does, that makes the governor a dictator (your words). To me that’s a simplistic, asinine and foolish assumption. is that more clear?

No she isn’t right. And it’s not pretzel logic either. Do you even understand what is meant by a constitutional republic?

No you’re misstating my position. Either you don’t understand me or you doing it deliberately. I offered my position pretty clearly in two posts

Again: in principle I support the idea of voting for people to make decisions, not voting directly for decisions. That’s why I believe in a republic and not a pure democracy. That doesn’t mean I always get what I want. Far from it. But as a general rule I oppose the whole state proposition thing, always have.

Actually you’re wrong about this, in principle. Truthfully California should not have propositions at all. The whole idea behind a constitutional republic is that we elect legislators to decide on the law. The public doesn’t decide on the law directly. Putting this specific issue aside, I want a governor, and a legislature, which makes informed decisions without worrying about what the public wants at any given time. That’s how our system was designed.

I hope you’re right.

I don’t know who that is.

Well first off I’m talking about 2026. 2028 is a ways off and a different issue. I think Newsom is a viable candidate, but even if I’m wrong about that one will emerge by then. But my point here is that if these protests are real, then it could lead to a blue wave election next year. If it doesn’t, if Republicans retain their hold in House and Senate (or even if they only lose by small margins) then these protests were meaningless and not the start of something bigger. One way or another we’ll find out.

I’ve thought so in the past. I don’t anymore. But I still find your views on this issue unreasonable.