Trump's imaginary "War"

[Syne]

If you read my earlier post, "welfare and food stamps" are taxpayer funded. You do know that, right?
If you're able-bodied enough to go protest (especially doing jazzercise), you're able to work... hence defrauding welfare programs.

[Magical Realist]

As usual you have absolutely no evidence that these people are on welfare or food stamps simply because they make time in their lives to protest what they see as unjust. It is an assumption that only enforces your stereotype of the lazy and fraudulent beneficiaries of govt assistance. People who are retired or who work in shifts or who simply have time off from their job could all be protesting. Your groundless hatred for anonymous people or "types" is showing again.

[Syne]

No one who works even a moderately taxing job 40 hours a week has the time and energy to devote to this LARPing.
If by "types" you mean all the white useless people in Portland, sure. That's all I see protesting there. Are the POC all in the costumes?
You have no evidence for any of your excuses. BTW, why aren't you out there? We know you have the time. Or are you one of the furries?

[Magical Realist]

In your face manbaby!

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday, refusing to reinstate, for now, Trump's ability to send National Guard troops into Illinois over the objections of its governor.

The administration argued in its appeal in October that it needed to federalize the National Guard to stop what Trump has said is unremitting violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at detention facilities in the Chicago area. But two lower courts ruled against Trump's claim that the protests in the Chicago area constituted a "rebellion or danger of rebellion" against the United States government that the president has the right to put down.

The court's action is one of only a handful of such "emergency docket" cases in which the conservative court has ruled against Trump since he began his second term as president almost a year ago. Many legal experts thought this emergency decision would take days or weeks, not months, as ended up being the case. It's unclear why it took so long.

"At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois," the majority wrote in its brief opinion. The court wrote that the president failed to explain why the situation in Illinois warranted an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the military's ability to execute laws on U.S. soil.

It's the first time the highest court has weighed in on the controversial deployments. While the decision does not set precedent, it brings some clarity about the president's power to deploy federal military resources.

Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice characterized the ruling as a major legal blow to Trump's plans for deployments.

"It's quite a narrow decision in some ways, but it also doesn't really chart much of a path forward for the president," she said."

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/23/nx-s1-564...onal-guard

[Yazata]

Just start actually enforcing this federal law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111

(a)In General.—Whoever—

(1)forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

(2)forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,

shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b)Enhanced Penalty.—

Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

[Syne]

Well, surge more federal agents in and really start cracking heads until the jackasses learn to quit impeding legal law enforcement. If they have to move city by city, so they can amass enough agents, so be it.

[Magical Realist]

We all know how assault laws work---just touch or bump into an officer and you'll get pepper sprayed and body-slammed and then zip-tied. And if you fight back they will arrest you for "resisting arrest." lol

[Syne]

Yep, morons and jackasses beware.

[Magical Realist]

Are you retarded? I just posted where the Supreme Court ruled that manbaby can't send the National Guard to cities to bash protesters' heads. Sorry to spoil your holidays.

[Syne]

Apparently you either can't read or don't know what "federal agents" are. Hint, they are not National Guard nor military.