Trump to take over D.C. Policing | Chicago Next

[farce©]

Guess you give Biden a pass for refusing to enforce ANY border laws during his four years while repeatedly declaring that the border was "secure." Also, what about all the Dem mayors who proclaim their cities as "sanctuary cities" and refuse to enforce Federal immigration laws?

It's the main reason Trump got re elected. He promised to enforce the law by securing the border and deporting illegals.

This is straight up bullshit. There is no way you actually believe the shit you post.

 

[CRHeel94]

Biden's biggest strategic mistake was not addressing the border issue earlier, like Obama did in his second term when he starts ramping up deportations.
BUT...the GOP is not innocent in all this...they knew they had valuable political real estate and refused to make any concessions to address the problem. Illegal immigration is like gold for the GOP.

And yes, I still think there was a concerted effort to ship illegals by foreign agents which exacerbated the problem.

 

[sringwal]

Sometimes I think about what we could actually do if we worked together as a common purpose rather than undermining each other constantly. And it makes me sad.

Because we’d rather do this instead. It’s weird.

 

[Zoo_View]

I don't have all the answers and haven't claimed to have them. Probably a combination of rural camp sites where they can receive the appropriate treatment and finding a way to place a number of them in mental institutions for full time treatments. Rural settings are best for a number of mental illnesses so you need to get them out of the cities for their sake (and the residents). Unfortunately, I think you'll find that some percentage of the homeless who enjoy the lifestyle of hanging out and taking drugs all day.

“…….finding a way to place a number of them in mental institutions for full-time treatments.”

Where are all of these mental institutions?

Who is funding these institutions?

 

[mpaer]

“…….finding a way to place a number of them in mental institutions for full-time treatments.”

Where are all of these mental institutions?

Who is funding these institutions?

Ramrouser won't vote taxes to fund them
Quite the opposite

 

[sringwal]

“…….finding a way to place a number of them in mental institutions for full-time treatments.”

Where are all of these mental institutions?

Who is funding these institutions?

Exactly, and institutionalizing the mentally ill is not cheap. Someone’s going to have to be taxed for this. It’s a logical solution, though, if you are willing to fund, and staff, it properly.

Welcome to the Democratic Party @Ramrouser. Have a donut and a beer.

 

[Calheel]

Exactly, and institutionalizing the mentally ill is not cheap. Someone’s going to have to be taxed for this. It’s a logical solution, though, if you are willing to fund, and staff, it properly.

Welcome to the Democratic Party @Ramrouser. Have a donut and a beer.

Institutionalizing the mentally ill has constitutional problems. The ACLU sued over this in the 1970s, which is part of the reason Reagan decided to just close down the hospitals in the 80s.

 

[sringwal]

Institutionalizing the mentally ill has constitutional problems. The ACLU sued over this in the 1970s, which is part of the reason Reagan decided to just close down the hospitals in the 80s.

I didn’t say “the unwilling.” Consent absolutely matters.

 

[Calheel]

I didn’t say “the unwilling.” Consent absolutely matters.

Institutionalizing - by definition - is non consensual.

If they can just leave at any time they want, it is a hospital or a group home.

 

[ZenMode]

Oh, one state invading another. Whatever could go wrong?

Hey @Ramrouser, wake the fuck up, man. Your guy is trying to start a civil war.

And apparently also a war with Venezuela.

Venezuela could "war" with 1/100th of the US military.

He's out there looking for conflict wherever he can find it. What do you think that's about?

I think he's killing drug traffickers. What is Venezuela going to do?

"Hey! You need to let us sneak drugs into your country or...or... we'll send more boats with drugs!"

When exactly are you going to admit that he's gone too far, and when he does, what are you going to do to make amends?

He has gone too far in some cases. Blowing up drugs boats isn't one of them.

 

[sringwal]

Institutionalizing - by definition - is non consensual.

If they can just leave at any time they want, it is a hospital or a group home.

Fair. I wasn’t using precise vocabulary. Thank you. I was using an overgeneralized, and archaic, term. Hospitals and group homes. Both of which are expensive to run and operate.

 

[superrific]

Venezuela could "war" with 1/100th of the US military.

I think he's killing drug traffickers. What is Venezuela going to do?

"Hey! You need to let us sneak drugs into your country or...or... we'll send more boats with drugs!"



He has gone too far in some cases. Blowing up drugs boats isn't one of them.

The point isn't to start a war that we might lose. The point is to manufacture then declare another "emergency" and impose wartime constraints.

If you don't think sinking a ship can start wars, I don't know what to tell you. I believe the US involvement in the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam either started with, or was escalated by, attacks on naval vessels. You are responsible for your stupidity, not me.

BTW if I recall, Reagan started a war with Grenada and Bush with Panama. 'Cause you know, we only start wars with competent foes. . .

 

[ZenMode]

The point isn't to start a war that we might lose. The point is to manufacture then declare another "emergency" and impose wartime constraints.

You're sounding more crazy with each post.

If you don't think sinking a ship can start wars, I don't know what to tell you. I believe the US involvement in the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam either started with, or was escalated by, attacks on naval vessels. You are responsible for your stupidity, not me.

BTW if I recall, Reagan started a war with Grenada and Bush with Panama. 'Cause you know, we only start wars with competent foes. . .

If it was a drug boat, which seems likely, Venezuela will do absolutely.... ABSOLUTELY nothing. We didn't bomb a "naval vessel" for fuck sake.

 

[sringwal]

US strike on 'Venezuela drug boat': What do we know, and was it legal?

Experts suggest the strike - which killed 11 alleged cartel members - may be illegal under international law.

www.bbc.com

BBC Verify reached out to a range of experts in international and maritime law, with several saying that US may have acted illegally in attacking the vessel.

The US is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the US military's legal advisors have previously said that the US should "act in a manner consistent with its provisions".

Under the convention, countries agree not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters. There are limited exceptions to this which allow a state to seize a ship, such as a "hot pursuit" where a vessel is chased from a country's waters into the high seas.

"Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures," Prof Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast said.

But he added that the use of aggressive tactics must be "reasonable and necessary in self-defence where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials", noting that the US moves were likely "unlawful under the law of the sea".

Are US strikes on alleged cartel members legal?​

Experts have also questioned whether the killing of the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua cartel could contravene international law on the use of force.

Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, countries can resort to force when under attack and deploying their military in self-defence. Trump has previously accused the Tren de Aragua cartel of conducting irregular warfare against the US, and the state department has designated the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

But Prof Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin told BBC Verify that the US actions "stretches the meaning of the term beyond its breaking point".

"The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets," he said. "The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization."

"Not only does the strike appear to have violated the prohibition on the use of force, it also runs afoul of the right to life under international human rights law."

Prof Moffett said that the use of force in this case could amount to an "extrajudicial arbitrary killing" and "a fundamental violation of human rights".

"Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law," he said.

 

[sringwal]

These rules exist for a reason. We need hard lines, and consistent responses and consequences for breaking, or even bending, international laws. Or this will lead to severe problems down the line. This isn’t just about the U.S. A lot of countries are taking note of how this plays out.

 

[superrific]

Of course this was a gross violation of international law. There's not even such a thing as a "drug ship."

 

[Zoo_View]

T

From the current events thread:

That guy is ONLY 50 years-old.

 

[Zoo_View]

I have yet to see a response for my actual question. If your answer is that you deserve no consequences should Trump tear the nation fully apart, as he has more or less promised to do and is obviously doing, then you will have no standing to complain about the consequences that will be imposed. Because the idea that you deserve no consequences is as farcical as "just following orders."

Who decides the Trumplicans suffer consequences?

What are the consequences?

• For gutting the EPA? CDC? NIH?
• Ending the Fed’s independence?

I’m not comfortable with retribution.

 

[Zoo_View]

Biden's biggest strategic mistake was not addressing the border issue earlier, like Obama did in his second term when he starts ramping up deportations.
BUT...the GOP is not innocent in all this...they knew they had valuable political real estate and refused to make any concessions to address the problem. Illegal immigration is like gold for the GOP.

And yes, I still think there was a concerted effort to ship illegals by foreign agents which exacerbated the problem.

Biden’s “mistake” regarding the border was insurmountable.

His choices were to either BREAK THE FUCKING LAW or give Trump and the Trumplicans an easy political issue.

The GOP has NO INTEREST in “solving” immigration. I’m not sure what “solving” immigration looks like.

 

[superrific]

Who decides the Trumplicans suffer consequences?

What are the consequences?

• For gutting the EPA? CDC? NIH?
• Ending the Fed’s independence?

I’m not comfortable with retribution.

Well, think about it. Soon I am going to prove that retribution is not only warranted but required.