Trump calls for the arrest and trial of 6 Democratic lawmakers for “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

[Grace Under Pressure 192]

15 hours ago, dogcows said:

 

MAGA supporters are violent and dangerous. And their fat senile pedophile leader is the worst of all. They should be ashamed of the entire movement. 
 

MAGA voters: Apologize to America and help us all kick the violent fascists in this administration to the curb for good. 

This is correct 

[dogcows 1,113]

10 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

100% lower court judges who have no authority on executive branch 

Hi my name is raiders haters revenge and I have never read the constitution.

[squistion 2,571]

 

[zsasz 390]

On 11/21/2025 at 1:00 PM, MDC said:

Came off like a stunt to me, especially since they didn’t say what illegal activities the military is being asked to carry out.

But Trump is utterly deranged.

Exactly.  

[jonnyutah 560]

11 hours ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Weird how Kyle never covers the SWATing of people with opposite views as him.  

Kyle probably has monkeypox.

[Ron_Artest 2,301]

Grandpa dementia back at it again last night.  Back to saying it's treason and sedition, which it clearly is not.  He is unwell.  Cucks like @jerryskids continue to make excuses for this shameful behavior.

[Maximum Overkill 2,496]

11 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Grandpa dementia back at it again last night.  Back to saying it's treason and sedition, which it clearly is not.  He is unwell.  Cucks like @jerryskids continue to make excuses for this shameful behavior.

You are an angry little Man 

[jerryskids 7,122]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

Grandpa dementia back at it again last night.  Back to saying it's treason and sedition, which it clearly is not.  He is unwell.  Cucks like @jerryskids continue to make excuses for this shameful behavior.

I already said in this thread that I disagree with him doing it.  At least twice, once directly to you.  Did you fall on your head again?  Maybe rest up, watch some football.   

[jerryskids 7,122]

20 hours ago, dogcows said:

Hi my name is raiders haters revenge and I have never read the constitution.

Actually, he's not wrong.  It was never the intention of the Constitution or the founding fathers to allow federal judge Joe Skyscreamer from Cheboygan to set national policy.  From AI:

Quote

AI Overview

 

 

 

It was generally 

not the intention of the Founding Fathers for lower federal courts to set national policy, but rather for the legislature (Congress) to fulfill that role [1]. The structure of the government outlined in the Constitution assigns the power to make law and set policy to the legislative branch [1]. 

The Founders envisioned the judiciary's role as interpreting the law, not creating it. Key principles and structures supporting this view include: 

• Separation of Powers: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system with distinct powers for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Article I grants "all legislative Powers" to Congress, indicating that setting policy is the domain of the elected representatives [1].
• Judicial Review: While not explicitly detailed in the Constitution, the power of judicial review (established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison) allows courts to interpret laws and the Constitution and strike down those that are unconstitutional [1]. This power is for interpretation and checking the other branches, not for proactively crafting broad national policy [1].
• Hierarchical Structure: The Founders established a hierarchical court system (detailed in Article III), with the Supreme Court as the ultimate judicial authority [1]. Decisions of lower federal courts only bind the parties to the case or within their specific circuit's jurisdiction; they do not automatically set national precedents in the same way a Supreme Court ruling does. 

Over time, particularly with the use of broad injunctions that can temporarily block the enforcement of federal policies nationwide, lower courts have been involved in decisions that have a significant de facto national impact [1]. However, this practice is a subject of ongoing debate and is generally seen as a deviation from the original intent, which reserved policy-making for the democratically accountable Congress [1]. 

 

[dogcows 1,113]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Actually, he's not wrong.  It was never the intention of the Constitution or the founding fathers to allow federal judge Joe Skyscreamer from Cheboygan to set national policy.  From AI:

Well if AI says it, it must be true LOL

This has been an ongoing dispute for 250 years, but it’s now a black and white issue thanks to AI?

Heck, even this far right Supreme Court that just overruled decades of precedent on nationwide injunctions acknowledged that their ruling was limited. 

LLM output is absolute focking shite, especially on anything requiring nuance and historical perspective. 

[seafoam1 3,465]

5 hours ago, dogcows said:

Well if AI says it, it must be true LOL

This has been an ongoing dispute for 250 years, but it’s now a black and white issue thanks to AI?

Heck, even this far right Supreme Court that just overruled decades of precedent on nationwide injunctions acknowledged that their ruling was limited. 

LLM output is absolute focking shite, especially on anything requiring nuance and historical perspective. 

Poor princess dogshlt rusty. He's hurting. 

[Ron_Artest 2,301]

7 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I already said in this thread that I disagree with him doing it.  At least twice, once directly to you.  Did you fall on your head again?  Maybe rest up, watch some football.   

Right you disagree with him, but you're still defending him.

[jerryskids 7,122]

19 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Right you disagree with him, but you're still defending him.

Missed your response on this, where I pointed out multiple times in this thread that I disagreed with Trump's actions.

On 11/21/2025 at 8:02 AM, jerryskids said:

I left to spend time with my wife.  Also, you were sky screaming as usual.  Murder$#!#@$#!  

My first post in this thread expressed surprise that my senator would get involved in this "seditious-ish" video.

Fnord replied that it wasn't seditious, they were just, ya know, reinforcing hypothetical HR training.

I asked Fnord if we were going to play that semantic game.

Fnord listed some potentially, but not officially, illegal orders.

Before I saw Fnord's post, I made the following general comment:

Note that I "certainly disagree" with the implications in Trump's statement.  My first value statement on Trump's actions. 

I then responded to Fnord regarding his list of possible illegal orders.  In that response I said:

So in this thread I stated two actions of Trump with which I disagree.  Tell me the last time you stated agreement with something Trump did?

Anyway, we got to talking about coherence, Sean proved his inability to process language and mentioned murder, you jumped on the murder bandwagon, and I decided to call it a night.

HTH

 

[Ron_Artest 2,301]

51 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Missed your response on this, where I pointed out multiple times in this thread that I disagreed with Trump's actions.

 

The video wasnt "seditious" ish.  The fact that you still think it was shows you're clueless.

[Tree of Knowledge 2,177]

My sources are telling me the Democrat Party is planning a sequel to the 2020 riots. This video was only the beginning.  If Trump uses military force to quell the insurrection, their hope is to foster discontent and possibly rebellion within the military itself.