TranscendentalEmpire @ TranscendentalEmpire @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,219

Joined

2 yr. ago

Man UK conservatives want to be American politicians soo bad.

Lol, and what are you doing besides belittling other progressive people on the Internet?

What would you suggest we all do that were not already doing? Or are you just going to continue to only respond via virtue signaling?

don't scare me and you have failed in your attempt to discourage

At what point did I try to scare you? I'm just trying to make you realize that people are upset, they just don't see a lot of options to do anything about it.

You complaining on the Internet is not doing anything more than any other american currently upset at the government. Trying to posture yourself as some warrior of justice from your computer chair doesn't validate belittling other people's feelings on the matter.

Once again I ask, what makes you think you are any more upset than anyone else? What actions have you committed that makes your anger more real than others?

By doing? The government doesn't care about protest, and anything more extreme than protest is met with extreme violence.

What actions are you doing that validates your superior sense of self worth?

Did Russia consider how much it would escalate tension in Europe when he invaded Ukraine?

I don't really understand how people forget that Russia has the primary ability and responsibility of maintaining good relations with their neighbors.

It's not like a company would ever lie to the public for money. They definitely wouldn't ever think of slowly rolling back free services and monetizing them....... I mean where would anyone even get that idea about a tech company?

Yet again another tech nerd turned fascist. I am beginning to think that learning computer programming is inherently damaging to the human brain.

Thanks, that makes things make a bit more sense.

Moving the goal posts, yet again. Ah yes, ad hominem.

Btw, attempting to frame everything as a logical fallacy isn't a fucking harry potter spell that automatically wins an argument. For it to be considered an actual logical fallacy the claim has to be logically flawed.

Meaning that for me to "attempt to move the goal post" means that my argument needs to shift in an illogical way as a way to confuse or obscure the original intent. If the argument adds or further expands the original claim then it's just adding to the body of evidence.

An ad hominem isn't just calling someone a bad name, it's an argument based on calling someone a bad name. As in don't listen to this guy, he's an idiot. I'm just calling you an idiot because I think you have reddit brain and it's upsetting.

They're not prisoners, they're not charged with a crime.

You fucking moron.... Anyone being held against their will is a prisoner.

Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.

Moving the goal posts, yet again.

A rebuttal isn't a logical fallacy you dolt. They just aren't transporting federal agents they are transporting prisoners, which the military isn't allowed to do.

Their issue is they don't even realize they are transporting human beings with innate rights, they just equate them as equipment.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

Lol, yeah...... And I am denying your and the administrations claim that this is a legal use of the US military. I'm not making an affirmation as I have no power to order the US military to do anything.

Providing transportation for other federal agencies is a lawful use of military equipment under 10 U.S. Code § 2642(a)(3):

Ahh yes, they're only transporting ice agents right ...... It's not like there are civilians on the plane who may or may not have been given due process.

The problem is that you don't even consider the cargo humans.

You're quoting things with footnotes but not linking the footnotes.

And.....? So you have a logical retort, or lack the ability to use google?

The Air Force isn't executing the laws. Saying that it is semantics isn't an argument that.

And you don't have the authority to make that claim. Nor are you providing any evidence to support your claim.

The people in ICE custody were captured by ICE. ICE executed the laws. Once the people were identified as foreign nationals, by ICE, and determined to require deportation, by ICE, then they are transported, by ICE, to their country of origin.

Ice doesn't have the physical ability to transport people to their country of origin.

The Air Force simply operates the aircraft and provides all of the required logistics to do so.

And military members have been sanctioned for support roles under the act in the past.

This is no different than ICE using Delta to return people to their country.

Except Delta is a private company and has the ability to not comply.

Are you surprised that people are upset that democratic leadership is once again showing themselves to be completely spineless in the face of rising fascism?

Why are people like you so hellbound to defend any criticism of the party? No one here is saying Democrats are worse than Republicans, they're just not happy with how obsessed they are with decorum when their opponents are actively trying to force a constitutional crisis.

I voted for Kamala Harris, I'm also exceedingly pissed off at Democrats for decades of thirdway politics, and taking any chance to roll over in the face of opposition.

If we don't criticize our own party then we're never going to change, that's not what the progressive party should be clinging on too. We obviously need to shake up the leadership of our own party or were going to continue seceding control over to fascist.

According to DoD policy, the armed forces are prohibited from performing the following law enforcement activities:

This article is limited to national guard personnel, active duty troops have even more limitations to domestic operations. Which is why national guard units were utilized to "secure the border", and not actual active duty service members.

Applies to National Guard (NG) personnel in Reference (d) status only. e. Applies to civilian employees of the DoD Components and the activities of DoD contractors performed in support of the DoD Components.

You're moving the goal posts. The Air Force isn't enforcing domestic policy. They're operating an aircraft to provide logistics for other federal agencies.

That's a semantic dispute, and service members have received sanctions for even support roles that are not directly excluded in the act .

"The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits using active duty personnel to "execute the laws"; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement.[1]

On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a shooting spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance, nor did President Barack Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received "administrative actions".[22][23] "

Still a bit hard to tell, but the guy is wearing a headset unlike any other of the border patrol guys, so he very well may be part of the flight crew. The point is that there's going to be at least 3 flight crew not in multicam.

The Air Force is not enforcing domestic policy here. If you see Airman out on the streets arresting people then you'd have a point.

I don't think you have any kind of authority to really substantiate that particular semantic dispute.

I'm sure we'll probably see it brought before a court at some point, but I would argue that if the policy isn't possible to execute without the logistical support of the military then the military is crucial to the enforcement of the policy.

Then you would know that not everyone on the plane would be wearing multicam.

It's a bit too blurry to be sure, but I'm pretty sure the guy standing to the right in the back next to the console with what looks like a patrol cap is more than likely the loadmaster and would be wearing a flight suit and over jacket.