Walz is Nuts

a reply to: frogs453

You really shouldn't lump everyone together like that.

Just because someone sometime somewhere made the argument that jack boot thugs were good or necessary doesn't mean every person that disagrees with you thinks that way.

It's also not always about making arguments. Not all of us are just cheering for our team. Some of us have things we actually believe in. Not everyone is just simply trying to score points.

a reply to: network dude

There's a context not provided.

It was May 30th. Riots started May 26th. Day 5, the first day of National Guard deployment was the night of this video.

Until that point the guardsman had been watching their state get burnt and looted by anti-authority protestors. Now they are deployed, and this is what that looks like.

Like a less motivating version of Marines sent into battle on Sep 16th, 2001. They are going to be seeing red more than white and blue.

This is EXACTLY what I imagine the very first night of National Guard deployment would look like. In fact, I CANT THINK OF ANY OTHER approach the NG would take on their first night of curfew enforcement.

I do have some authoritarian principles, and one of them is the need to put everyone in timeout when they get too reactive for their own good. A curfew during civil unrest compelling people to stay inside would be one of them.

It gets close to Writ of Habeas Corpus territory, where civil unrest is a "rebellion or invasion" that triggers the suspension clause, which can be done via Executive Order.

I know it wasn't suspended, but I think in times of unrest or rebellion, it's in the same ballpark, and your constitutional privilege in that moment legally tells you to listen to the soldiers and get the f*ck back in the house.

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: 5thHead

Can we compare Walz and Vance for some laughs?

Sure. Go for it. I’ll start.

Did Vance tell LEOs to shoot people during Covid?

🤣

a reply to: frogs453

Don't forget his plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to use the military to quell any protests.

a reply to: Degradation33

Because there were people rioting on their own porches?

a reply to: Degradation33

I know it wasn't suspended, but I think in times of unrest or rebellion, its in the same ballpark, and your constitutional privilege can legally tell you to listen to soldiers and get the f*ck back in the house.

Well don't be surprised when the people that own the house tell you to get the f@ck off their lawn.

Don't be surprised when things escalate and people end up hurt.

Don't be surprised when the dust settles you spend you life in a cage or tied up in court.

Your advocating some serious stuff.

This ain't a game of GI Joe.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
WALZ a drunk driver like Pelosi's husband?

Cop: I Arrested Tim Walz for DUI. He Told the Truth. Then Came the Lies

Full story at: www.thedailybeast.com...

Free Avatar...if anyone is interested.

a reply to: 5thHead

I'm not advocating anything explicitly, I'm pointing out that during times of civil unrest you can lose your wrIt of habeas corpus, constitutionally.

Hypothetically, if Kamala won and there was an uprising over it, EVERYONE could lose constitutional privilege. Some of their "inalienable rights" rescinded no matter which side they are on.

That's the reality of deploying national guard in a domestic situation. Even the peaceful and harmless are treated like an enemy belligerent. Even the pro Law Enforcement out there to cheer.

It sucks, but it's the reality of what can happen to your rights during civil unrest. And I'm authoritative enough to see it's rarely used benefit for extreme civil unrest.

MSM coverage got Trump elected in 2016, Biden in 2020 and it's going to take an act of God to keep kamal from being elected in 2024.

We, the people havn't picked a candidate in decades; the media does it for us, does all the campaign footwork and there isn't a darn thing that can be done about it.


Trump included all people, all belief systems; Walz want total dictatorial controll and elimination of any opposing beliefs.

There are probably worse things the 340 million people living under socialism, but having grown up with a lot more freedom than we have today I'm not sure what that woyld be.

a reply to: SteamyAmerican

"Stay home" or "Stay inside"

Like you're surprised they were overzealous on Night 1 of deployment. Their shock and awe phase.

I think you would listen to authority during civil unrest, like a good girl should.

National Guard is yelling,

"Go home! Get inside! Get in your house now, let’s go!”

If that's their orders to enforce that's their orders. Why are we turning on uniformed service people being overzealous with curfew enforcement at the worst point of unrest?

a reply to: Degradation33

if cops marched around here, and told me to get inside and off my porch, then shot at me, I and about everyone I know would return fire. it's something you don't do. it's wrong. Like a football bat is wrong. It's a shame you can't just say that, but I suppose it's important to know who you are talking to here, so kudos for your honesty.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: SteamyAmerican

"Stay home" or "Stay inside"

Like you're surprised they were overzealous on Night 1 of deployment. Their shock and awe phase.

I think you listen to authority during civil unrest, like a good girl should.

National Guard is yelling,

"Go home! Get inside! Get in your house now, let’s go!”

If that's their orders to enforce that's their orders. Why are we turning on uniformed service people being overzealous with curfew enforcement?

Pretty derisive reply.

Guess you should ask Walz.

*shrug

a reply to: network dude

You don't know what they had encountered until that point. Like there could have been a lack of tolerance of people yelling # Tha Police that immediately deployed sublethal rounds to undeserving spectators that happened to be outside.

Not like these were drones of Walz following fascist orders, they were trained soldiers (your national guard) being oberzealous with curfew compliance.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: network dude

You don't know what they had encountered until that point. Like there could have been a lack of tolerance of people yelling # Tha Police that immediately deployed sublethal rounds to undeserving spectators that happened to be outside.

Not like these were drones of Walz following fascist orders, they were trained soldiers being oberzealous with curfew compliance.

Doesn't really matter. Habeas Corpus can only be suspended by Presidential order (and that's dubious on it's own) and hasn't happened since the Civil War. There is a constitutional right to sit on YOUR property and tell the State's jack-booted thugs to eat a giant bag of d*cks.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: network dude

You don't know what they had encountered until that point. Like there could have been a lack of tolerance of people yelling # Tha Police that immediately deployed sublethal rounds to undeserving spectators that happened to be outside.

Not like these were drones of Walz following fascist orders, they were trained soldiers being oberzealous with curfew compliance.

Yes, and there is no excuse for how wrong that was. I don't give a rats ass who told them to do it.

"light them up", was the command. That was wrong. In the United States of America, nobody can force you to not be on your land without a warrant and due process. That silly bit of parchment some call the COTUS mentions it. But as I said, it's good to know who you are speaking to.

a reply to: network dude

I don't think they had the ability to override their overzealous need to "light em up" in that situation.

They were there to restore order. In their mind everyone outside was a rioter that refused to disperse.

They were of a mindset the public was their enemy. There is very little "spirit of the law" during civil unrest. All not complying with their really authoritative orders get treated equal.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: network dude

I don't think they had the ability to override their overzealous need to "light em up" in that situation.

They were there to restore order. In there mind everyone outside was a rioters that refused to disperse.

They were of a mindset the public was their enemy. There is very little "spirit of the law" during civil unrest. All not complying with their really authoritative orders get treated equal.

I feel like you have channeled your inner silly ole me. You are quite a bit more intelligent than this. My point is, no matter what their mindset was, it was wrong, it was unconstitutional, and if they did that sh!t around here, they would be honored at their funeral.

ATTENTION...please read before posting further....

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (Redux)


BE AWARE THAT IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND/OR IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO HAVE POSTS REMOVED. OR YOU MAY BE TEMPORARILY POST BANNED!
AND, PLEASE REMEMBER THERE IS NO MORE MUD PIT....MUD NOT ALLOWED. Just because the MUD PIT is gone, doesn't mean ATS allows muddy politics.

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.
Those who refuse to get that concept may be POST BANNED!!!

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: network dude

I don't think they had the ability to override their overzealous need to "light em up" in that situation.

They were there to restore order. In there mind everyone outside was a rioters that refused to disperse.

They were of a mindset the public was their enemy. There is very little "spirit of the law" during civil unrest. All not complying with their really authoritative orders get treated equal.

No. They weren’t. They were “just following orders”.

Which included shooting people on their porches.

And not so much securing the downtown metropolis.

The civil unrest you describe was, we were told, “mostly peaceful”. And those torching businesses and police precincts were given leeway for airing their “racial grievances” and bail, while people at home were terrorized not only by the mob, but the goons with badges.

But you know this.