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 1,117]

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 2,576]

 

[zsasz 391]

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 2,305]

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 2,500]

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 7,127]

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 7,127]

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 1,117]

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 2,305]

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 7,127]

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 2,305]

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.  

[Fnord 2,570]

On 11/23/2025 at 8:42 AM, jerryskids said:

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].

Well now we're getting somewhere.

What the lower courts are doing is entirely within their jurisdictions; they are ruling on executive orders, not legislation. They are not countermanding law, they are telling POTUS his EO's are illegal,  pretty much universally. Since congressional GOPers have rolled over and played dead, allowing Dear Leader Don to do whatever comes into his his shriveled little brain, none of what he is doing is codified, therefore completely subject to judicial review. That is my non-lawyerly interpretation.

[jerryskids 7,127]

12 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Well now we're getting somewhere.

What the lower courts are doing is entirely within their jurisdictions; they are ruling on executive orders, not legislation. They are not countermanding law, they are telling POTUS his EO's are illegal,  pretty much universally. Since congressional GOPers have rolled over and played dead, allowing Dear Leader Don to do whatever comes into his his shriveled little brain, none of what he is doing is codified, therefore completely subject to judicial review. That is my non-lawyerly interpretation.

Thanks, that's certainly a better response than @dogcows' "muh AI#@!"

I was commenting on his assertion that RHR didn't know the Constitution.  So perhaps you can point out where in the Constitution, or even the Federalist papers, it is enumerated that Joe Progressive judge can set broad national policy if he doesn't like an EO or the guy who issues it?  As I stated, lower courts are intended to have jurisdiction only over the case at hand and possibly the district.

Heck, your own inclusion of my link implies that:

Quote

This power is for interpretation and checking the other branches, not for proactively crafting broad national policy

My point was, DogCows made fun of RHR for not knowing the Constitution.  That didn't end well for him.  HTH

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,573]

Thanks Jerry. I’m tired of arguing with women I’ll debate with guys like fnord on policy but it’s clear these guys like Ron and dogsh1t believe in the tooth fairy 

[Fnord 2,570]

19 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks, that's certainly a better response than @dogcows' "muh AI#@!"

I was commenting on his assertion that RHR didn't know the Constitution.  So perhaps you can point out where in the Constitution, or even the Federalist papers, it is enumerated that Joe Progressive judge can set broad national policy if he doesn't like an EO or the guy who issues it?  As I stated, lower courts are intended to have jurisdiction only over the case at hand and possibly the district.

Heck, your own inclusion of my link implies that:

My point was, DogCows made fun of RHR for not knowing the Constitution.  That didn't end well for him.  HTH

The judges aren't setting policy. They are interpreting existing law w/r/t whatever they are ruling on. Declaring that something is illegal/anti-constitutional is not setting policy. It's telling the powers that be that the EO's are illegal, and therefore unenforceable. This is what appeals are for.

[jerryskids 7,127]

17 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

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

Sure it is.  A member of the military can reasonably infer that these Congresspeople are implying that they are receiving illegal orders, and that they should disobey such orders.  

Or perhaps you are on the dopey side of "it's just a reminder of normal HR training" pablum.   

[Ron_Artest 2,305]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Sure it is.  A member of the military can reasonably infer that these Congresspeople are implying that they are receiving illegal orders, and that they should disobey such orders.  

Or perhaps you are on the dopey side of "it's just a reminder of normal HR training" pablum.   

Well yeah that's exactly what it was, reminding them of their oath.  That's not sedition.  Like I said you're clueless and just carrying Trump's BS.

Thou do protest too much.

[jerryskids 7,127]

41 minutes ago, Fnord said:

The judges aren't setting policy. They are interpreting existing law w/r/t whatever they are ruling on. Declaring that something is illegal/anti-constitutional is not setting policy. It's telling the powers that be that the EO's are illegal, and therefore unenforceable. This is what appeals are for.

Do you think a district court requiring the federal government to issue full SNAP payments is setting policy?  

[jerryskids 7,127]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

Well yeah that's exactly what it was, reminding them of their oath.  That's not sedition.  Like I said you're clueless and just carrying Trump's BS.

Thou do protest too much.

You followed up "yeah well that's exactly what it was" with something that is not what I said.  Seriously, do you read posts when you reply, or just parrot your far Left dogma?

[Ron_Artest 2,305]

45 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You followed up "yeah well that's exactly what it was" with something that is not what I said.  Seriously, do you read posts when you reply, or just parrot your far Left dogma?

You know I used to think you were just a d1ck but I now think that you're just mentally impaired.

I'll reply to you as I would a child.

53 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Or perhaps you are on the dopey side of "it's just a reminder of normal HR training" pablum.   

 

49 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Well yeah that's exactly what it was, reminding them of their oath.  That's not sedition. 

 

Democrats might say it's just a reminder based on possible orders, like Trump said he will send the army, navy, etc into US cities., but I think it was actually just a political move to upset an unstable lunatic, and mission accomplished.  You're just not smart enough to understand, I'm sorry.

[dogcows 1,117]

2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Thanks Jerry. I’m tired of arguing with women I’ll debate with guys like fnord on policy but it’s clear these guys like Ron and dogsh1t believe in the tooth fairy 

Bite me 

[dogcows 1,117]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Sure it is.  A member of the military can reasonably infer that these Congresspeople are implying that they are receiving illegal orders, and that they should disobey such orders.  

Or perhaps you are on the dopey side of "it's just a reminder of normal HR training" pablum.   

Absolute .

Telling people their responsibilities under rhe UCMJ is perfectly legal. 

The butthurt among Trump arse-lickers is truly pathetic. Anything or anybody that questions dear leader is sedition???

MTG was a huge antagonistic opponent of the left but never got a threat. Days after opposing Trump, MAGA’s violent racist tw4ts sent so many threats that she had to hire security. 

We know who the real traitors are. The ones who literally smeared on the walls of our Capitol building. And who were pardoned by their fascist hero.

Somebody who pretends to be smart but claims that telling people the LAW is sedition? What a joke. Maybe you should ask “AI” to remind you what the first amendment says. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,573]

12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Bite me 

no thanks little girl

 

[dogcows 1,117]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks, that's certainly a better response than @dogcows' "muh AI#@!"

I was commenting on his assertion that RHR didn't know the Constitution.  So perhaps you can point out where in the Constitution, or even the Federalist papers, it is enumerated that Joe Progressive judge can set broad national policy if he doesn't like an EO or the guy who issues it?  As I stated, lower courts are intended to have jurisdiction only over the case at hand and possibly the district.

Heck, your own inclusion of my link implies that:

My point was, DogCows made fun of RHR for not knowing the Constitution.  That didn't end well for him.  HTH

Again you are “quoting” AI and also attributing BS like “shaping policy” to court rulings on executive orders. 

Executive orders aren’t in the constitution so imagine how absurd it is to invoke some notions about the Founders’ opinions on the role of the judiciary concerning them. 

If the executive gave himself a power to establish these nationally-effective orders, than the judiciary sure as hell has the right to rule on them. And since the order itself is national, it’s absurd to force a judge to only block it in their jurisdiction. 

Funny enough, the judiciary already figured out a way around this (did you listen to the arguments in this case at SCOTUS? I did…) They can make decisions as a class action settlement. We are already seeing some judges doing this with basically the entire nation as a “class” in the case. 

[seafoam1 3,465]

1 minute ago, dogcows said:

Again you are “quoting” AI and also attributing BS like “shaping policy” to court rulings on executive orders. 

Executive orders aren’t in the constitution so imagine how absurd it is to invoke some notions about the Founders’ opinions on the role of the judiciary concerning them. 

If the executive gave himself a power to establish these nationally-effective orders, than the judiciary sure as hell has the right to rule on them. And since the order itself is national, it’s absurd to force a judge to only block it in their jurisdiction. 

Funny enough, the judiciary already figured out a way around this (did you listen to the arguments in this case at SCOTUS? I did…) They can make decisions as a class action settlement. We are already seeing some judges doing this with basically the entire nation as a “class” in the case. 

Poor princess rusty dogshlt. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure 192]

MAGA thinks trolling the libs is literally more important than America. When “debating”, keep in mind defending the leader and being able to post the screaming lib meme are the primary MAGA motivations.

They don’t care about the Constitutional argument, lol at that. MAGA would easily have Trump installed in 2028 to “own the libs”. Just keep in mind what you’re dealing with. 

[MDC 7,954]

I thought the video was a stunt. If you’re going to imply that the military are getting illegal orders you should say what those orders are.

Trump ordering the military to kill civilians without due process or encouraging the military to use maximum force and treat US cities as training grounds is arguably illegal. 

At least, it’s more likely illegal than telling the military not to follow illegal orders is “sedition.” 

[seafoam1 3,465]

[seafoam1 3,465]

13 minutes ago, MDC said:

I thought the video was a stunt. If you’re going to imply that the military are getting illegal orders you should say what those orders are.

Trump ordering the military to kill civilians without due process or encouraging the military to use maximum force and treat US cities as training grounds is arguably illegal. 

At least, it’s more likely illegal than telling the military not to follow illegal orders is “sedition.” 

That's all it took. 

 This is too easy. Poor mdpee.  

[dogcows 1,117]

10 minutes ago, MDC said:

I thought the video was a stunt. If you’re going to imply that the military are getting illegal orders you should say what those orders are.

Trump ordering the military to kill civilians without due process or encouraging the military to use maximum force and treat US cities as training grounds is arguably illegal. 

At least, it’s more likely illegal than telling the military not to follow illegal orders is “sedition.” 

I don’t deny it was a stunt, although I think it was meant just to get people talking about what an illegal order is.
 

But it was far more powerful than that because Princess Donald is big mad now. He’s even trying to get Hegseth to prosecute Senator Mark Kelly. 

[dogcows 1,117]

18 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

MAGA thinks trolling the libs is literally more important than America. When “debating”, keep in mind defending the leader and being able to post the screaming lib meme are the primary MAGA motivations.

They don’t care about the Constitutional argument, lol at that. MAGA would easily have Trump installed in 2028 to “own the libs”. Just keep in mind what you’re dealing with. 

I’m aware

[MDC 7,954]

4 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I don’t deny it was a stunt, although I think it was meant just to get people talking about what an illegal order is.
 

But it was far more powerful than that because Princess Donald is big mad now. He’s even trying to get Hegseth to prosecute Senator Mark Kelly. 

The stunt part was not saying what the illegal orders are. It’s not like they don’t have a few to chose from. Trump is nuts though.

[Tree of Knowledge 2,177]

Kelly being restored to active duty for a court martial?  I think this is a FAFO moment as the kids say.  

[Gepetto 1,461]

3 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Kelly being restored to active duty for a court martial?  I think this is a FAFO moment as the kids say.  

[Gepetto 1,461]

I wonder how history will remember them. 

e.g. The Treasonous Six

 

[dogcows 1,117]

4 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Kelly being restored to active duty for a court martial?  I think this is a FAFO moment as the kids say.  

We just saw what happened with Comey and James’ prosecutions getting laughed out of court. This case is even thinner than those.

What is it like being gullible enough to think this will actually work?