Anonymous #1 1w

Well for one the president has broken the law like, dozens to hundreds of times in this admin alone. Like, not “I think he broke the law”, he outright just disregards constitutional law on a regular basis.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

And here in lies the problem. What do you, as a right winger, say here to make yourself look good without lying? You cant. Either you have to believe it’s right for Trump to break the law and are therefore at best an authoritarian, or you have to lie and pretend he isn’t breaking the law. Neither of which will actually fly. Which is why no right winger gives a shit about debating anymore. They know they’re lying, so what’s there to debate? Plus if they did they’d look bad.

9

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

My question would be how did he break the law? Surely you can’t be referring to how ICE is rounding up illegal immigrants. No, I care about debate. I care about conversation. It’s just that whenever I try to talk to someone, their opinions on things make zero sense.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

The mass firings broke the law as ruled by a judge, the deployment of the national guard to civilian cities violates the Comitatus act, and Trump has repeatedly violated federal injunction regarding fema.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

Just to name like a couple

3

Anonymous #1 1w

That’s literally just off the dome

6

Anonymous #1 1w

?

4

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I’m gonna need to see a source on how mass firings are illegal. He’s the president, I’d assume he has the power to fire whoever he wants whenever he wants. Also, he never violated that law. That act has exemptions to it. Especially when he’s using the military to enforce federal law. Which finding illegal immigrants and deporting them is federal law. Need a source on that too.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Oh you’d assume? Well gee since you assume.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

What exceptions to that act does our currently existing situation permit?

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Is it not reasonable to assume that the president, the highest power in the land, can fire anyone in the government that is under his jurisdiction? Makes sense to me. I said it already, he can do it to uphold federal law. He isn’t deploying the military on citizens. He’s using it to gather illegal immigrants. People who aren’t supposed to be here anyway.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

If they’re deployed into civilian cities, they’re deployed on civilians.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

See what I mean? You have to lie SO MUCH

2

Anonymous #1 1w

Still waiting on you to show me that exception please.

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I’m not lying, YOU’RE the one being disingenuous. How do you expect the police to do their job and find these illegal immigrants if they can’t be in “civilian cities” as you put it. They aren’t being deployed on citizens. They’re amongst citizens, it isn’t the same. I told you twice. You’re just ignoring what I’m saying.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

I also don’t understand what claim you think I’m lying about.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Police? National guard are not police.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

Interesting equation. And as for the exception, I want the actual exception as stated in the law. Not just, like, that you think it’s okay based on vibes. Textual evidence my man.

5

Anonymous #1 1w

Quote it please.

4

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

You’re arguing semantics at that point. Whatever term you use it means the same. It isn’t “based on vibes.” First of all, it’s common sense that they can do it if it’s enforcing federal law, which it is. Secondly, I’ll give it to you. Just gimme a second.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

… no. The military is not the police. That isn’t fucking semantics. God what a terrifying thing for you to say, jfc.

3

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

Use whatever term. The military we can use that. The national guard.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Right. So did you read that? It says that their use needs to be authorized by Congress, or called by a state (governor). Was the use of the military authorized by Congress in this case, or called for by the governor of the state they were deployed into?

2

Anonymous #1 1w

I had to reread it like six times because it seems like you just underlined that sentence without even reading any of the prior ones, that doesn’t even remotely help your case lmao

3

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I think you have reading comprehension problems then bc it doesn’t say anywhere that congress has to approve it. It says that congress already authorized it. Plus, it doesn’t even matter bc it says that the act, the whole thing, doesn’t apply to the national guard.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Also yes, the act DOES apply to the national guard. the part that you underlined doesn’t say those groups are exempt wholly, it says they’re exempt when a STATE GOVERNMENT calls them in. That’s what the word STATE means in this context. The state government did not do that.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

“Under state authority” means under the authority of a specific STATES government. As in, not the fed. Don’t even question my reading comprehension skill again, or anyone’s.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

Here is where we get to the part where you either have to admit you were wrong or lie.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I still don’t think that matters bc him rejecting it is in defiance of federal law. All the states need to abide by federal law. The state isn’t the strongest government. If it was, every state might as well be its own country.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

… okay. You don’t think it matters if he breaks the law? Is what you’re saying?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Genuinely checking to see if I have this correct. You think it’s okay for the president to overexert his power and break federal law in this instance? Not moralizing or anything just making sure I have your position correct.

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I don’t think he broke the law. Gavin newsomes sole reason for rejecting it is because he’s an idiot and doesn’t like trump. He can not like trump all we wants, but he can’t intentionally obstruct justice and the federal law from going about.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Okay but Gavin’s right. There’s a law in place to prevent the national guard being sent to his state without his permission. You don’t get to pick and choose when the law applies. This is what I mean about conservatives knowing they’re liars and not caring about debate anymore. Are we fucking for real right now?

4

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I disagree. Gavin doesn’t choose whether or not federal law gets followed or not in his state. The states follow federal law.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

“Gavin newsom is breaking federal law by asking Trump to follow federal law” Bro stop acting like you give a shit about the law, you’re advocating for it to be broken right now. You can say “I disagree with that law” but nobody cares. I’m sure a lot of criminals also disagreed with the law.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

This is why debate is so bad now a days. What do you want me to say to this? You’re just repeatedly saying that you “disagree” that Trump broke the law. Nothing you’re saying has any bearing on legislation or reality. It’s all feelings. All your beliefs are based on what you FEEL is true.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

You’re the one advocating for it to be broken. Illegals are illegal, they aren’t supposed to be here, Gavin newsom is actively obstructing the law and the people that voted for this to happen. He is promoting insurrection in California. There are close to 1 million illegal immigrants in Los Angeles alone, and illegals in the entire country take up to 450 BILLION DOLLARS every year. They need to get out and go through the system like every other person. They aren’t special. If you can’t

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Understand that, then I can’t help you. It’s not America’s job to take care of these people.

1