Trump's SS Thugs in action!

How shameful is this?

A legal student, at university.

Any questions, see he at university, not grabbed off the streets by thugs!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Trump's SS Thugs in action!

How shameful is this?

A legal student, at university.

Any questions, see he at university, not grabbed off the streets by thugs!

well the usa is now a different country that we thought was not to happen and it went fast ... they arrested and detained europeans citizen, canadian citizen so it is coming fast. a very good reason to avoid that country for a very long time.

So they found LEOs so bereft of American values that they would participate in trampling on First Amendment rights?

I would hope I'd have strong enough principles to say no, even if it cost me my job.

And I hope the next patriotic administration fires their asses, along with everyone above them in the command chain.

The S. Ct., has held that due process rights apply to non-citizens where the U.S. has de facto sovereignty.

Thus, a person present in the U.S. under a legal status would enjoy the protection of the 1st Amendment. However, we have seen this Court’s majority willing to disregard nearly a century of liberty precedent. Therefore, I do not know how this will play out.

As the Constitution stands now, this appears to be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Whatever, the S. Ct., decides. I’ll respect it, and call out flaws in precedent application, or analysis.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

I would hope I'd have strong enough principles to say no, even if it cost me my job.

We have to! We absolutely have to.

Decades ago I asked an adult I looked up to how he prioritized himself or his values. I remember very plainly he said he was a Christian first and foremost. I don't remember, he might have said second he was a father or a husband, I dunno which, but I do know he said he was his profession about 8th or 10th.
His job was to earn a buck and provide for his family, no more or less. I'm quite certain he'd of not bent or broken any of his values for pay.

My uncle farmed and to tell the truth, most years he was pretty poor. Some years the farm just didn't cut it and my aunt had to go to town and teach at the local Catholic School.

Well Uncle's farm was absolutely rich in wildlife and he'd of had no problem feeding his family off the land, but he wouldn't take game out of season because he felt he needed to teach his kids to abide by the law. After farm harvest, after hunting season his farm was awash in big fat bucks we never saw during deer season and he would touch em.

No doubt about it, were being taught very carefully that going low and hitting below the belt wins every time, I guess it's just a matter of how much groveling in the gutter one has in them.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
So they found LEOs so bereft of American values that they would participate in trampling on First Amendment rights?

I would hope I'd have strong enough principles to say no, even if it cost me my job.

And I hope the next patriotic administration fires their asses, along with everyone above them in the command chain.

Reminds me of a comment a previous city personnel director made when discussing how bad some of the current police officers were. If you think the ones we have now are bad you should see the ones we don't hire. I guess they eventually get hired elsewhere and often get caught on camera being who they really are.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

I would hope I'd have strong enough principles to say no, even if it cost me my job.

Honey, by your own statement, you once quit a job over a 10% pay dispute, during a government revenue down turn, if i recall your story right

aren't you retired?

so much drama

Hell, Jeff,
I quit jobs because I didn't like the foreman's tone. Nothing wrong with that. Bill.

Here's a guy who doesn't like the foreman's tone:

https://youtu.be/qKAdujuHvuQ?si=Y3MqE6_N6GcNnHJh

“How Fascism Works” Author Jason Stanley Plans to Leave the U.S. | Amanpour and Compan

Trump's America has started to challenge and redefine academic freedom, and Yale Professor Jason Stanley is sounding the alarm. He is the author of "Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future." Stanley joins the show to discuss how new teaching guidelines are stoking a culture of fear, and why he's taking drastic measures as a result.

Under the OP banner of "Your New America",
ostensibly Make America Great Again, heavy on Make, the scope isn't just about academics and violations of first amendment due process.

Trump's authoritarianism/fascist movement, with approval and support from self-deemed (ultra) conservatives, covers all the bases of transition from the Founder's Plan to Trumpism.

The strategic attacks on Accademia, the press, the judiciary, lawyers, opposition, the institutions, regulations, agencies, deep state, allies, the kowtowing of GOPers in congress, threats, intimidation, kissing Putin's ass, propaganda, all point to one simple thing - authoritarianism.

Examples:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...9e3e74953bf8b6&ei=45

Incensed over legal losses, Trump asks Supreme Court to end 'interbranch power grab'
Story by Jordan Rubin • 19h • 2 min read

And the incompetence:

https://youtube.com/shorts/Vpw...?si=NoACPfroKHRZguXN

James puts 'Trump apologist' in Idiots' Corner

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
So they found LEOs so bereft of American values that they would participate in trampling on First Amendment rights?

I would hope I'd have strong enough principles to say no, even if it cost me my job.

And I hope the next patriotic administration fires their asses, along with everyone above them in the command chain.

Reminds me of a comment a previous city personnel director made when discussing how bad some of the current police officers were. If you think the ones we have now are bad you should see the ones we don't hire. I guess they eventually get hired elsewhere and often get caught on camera being who they really are.

After a spate of illegal behaviour in the NZ police force my father was tasked with finding out what processes led too them getting hired and how they got through.

While they improved things a lot, the conclusion was that its nearly impossible too prevent the last 4-7% of unsuitable people in any important social occupation. Police, doctors etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Hell, Jeff,
I quit jobs because I didn't like the foreman's tone. Nothing wrong with that. Bill.

So have i, or from sh!tty conditions in an office job

But you aren't taking the moral position on job conditions when you already proved you would walk off a job for a slight decrease.

Would I? In 2009 I took a 10% pay cut and a promise of no bonus that year, as did every leader in the company, to avoid layoffs. Got the 10% DOLLARS back 3 years later when the company recovered, but the 10% was lifted in 2010

Green card is probationary period of 5 years or more before the holder can apply for citizenship
And that’s that
You don’t follow every probationary rule nd law, you can get deported as you don’t have all the protections of citizenship
Every country on this earth has it

What rule and law did this student violate? A rule against exercising her First Amendment rights?

My wife was a green-card holder for years. No one ever told her she gave up her right to criticize US policies, if she wished.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Green card is probationary period of 5 years or more before the holder can apply for citizenship
And that’s that
You don’t follow every probationary rule nd law, you can get deported as you don’t have all the protections of citizenship
Every country on this earth has it

in canada unless you are getting a criminal conviction you are not deported for a critic of the supremer leader or forgetting to stop at a traffic light ... in the same token a DUI that happened to you (a pure us citizen) many decades ago might prevent you to come to visit us ...

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Green card is probationary period of 5 years or more before the holder can apply for citizenship
And that’s that
You don’t follow every probationary rule nd law, you can get deported as you don’t have all the protections of citizenship
Every country on this earth has it

You do know the S. Ct., has grid enemy combatants held where the YS has “de facto sovereignty” are entitled to due process.

Thus, green card holders are entitled ti due process.

If the President can or is permitted to ignore that due process, you can be grabbed and put in a plane.

I do know that green card holder is entitled to due process if they fuck up
All I’m saying is when you have green card, you’re guest in probationary period so you better behave as such
Everyone knows there is no free lunch but maybe Dems still think there is…

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
I do know that green card holder is entitled to due process if they fuck up
All I’m saying is when you have green card, you’re guest in probationary period so you better behave as such
Everyone knows there is no free lunch but maybe Dems still think there is…

It seems that what you "know" and what's true are mostly divergent.

"Green card holders are entitled to due process." If you had ended your sentence there you would be correct.

Even if you are correct about "guest" or "probationary" and "behave" which I doubt, due process is no different for them than it is for everyone. That's the point.

Due process is not "free lunch". It's a National standard of behavior on the part of all who support and abide the rule of law, politics aside. If one's ideology, beliefs, politics, power status is contrary to that principle, then such person(s) can be correctly presumed to be anti-American.

I'll give an example that I think is relevant enough.

Recently I achieved a default judgment from small claims court, per magistrate. The defendant didn't show up to the hearing. His only response in writing was "we deny all allegations", which was specifically dismissed per the default judgment. So, when I went to the corporate office, a car dealership, to see what the status of my check is, the comptroller already knew who I was and said she needed permission to issue the check. She called her boss on the cell phone, put it on speaker phone and laid it on her desk in front of me. He said he was going to issue a response statement to the court. Then he realized I could hear him. I asked what court. He said superior court.

Apparently, he intends to appeal the default judgment to a higher court, perhaps a judge who has more respect for his status. Go figure.

I haven't had a consult with an attorney yet. I'll wait for that to see what I'm facing. The default judgment says I'm entitled to recover any additional costs incurred.

So, what I think I'm seeing is intentional thwarting of due process. The dealership is trying to bypass the whole intention of small claims court. The facts and circumstances were never argued in lower court.

That's going to be my first argument. And does a default judgment for no-show really mean anything?

So, my point is that as Americans, due process in the rule of law should matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
I do know that green card holder is entitled to due process if they fuck up
All I’m saying is when you have green card, you’re guest in probationary period so you better behave as such
Everyone knows there is no free lunch but maybe Dems still think there is…

It seems that what you "know" and what's true are mostly divergent.

"Green card holders are entitled to due process." If you had ended your sentence there you would be correct.

Even if you are correct about "guest" or "probationary" and "behave" which I doubt, due process is no different for them than it is for everyone. That's the point.

Due process is not "free lunch". It's a National standard of behavior on the part of all who support and abide the rule of law, politics aside. If one's ideology, beliefs, politics, power status is contrary to that principle, then such person(s) can be correctly presumed to be anti-American.

I'll give an example that I think is relevant enough.

Recently I achieved a default judgment from small claims court, per magistrate. The defendant didn't show up to the hearing and his only response in writing was "we deny all allegations". So, when I went to the corporate office, a car dealership, to see what the status of my check is, the comptroller already knew who I was and said she needed permission to issue the check. She called her boss on the cell phone, put it on speaker phone and laid it on her desk in front of me. He said he was going to issue a response statement to the court. Then he realized I could hear him. I asked what court. He said superior court.

Apparently, he intends to appeal the default judgment to a higher court.

I haven't had a consult with an attorney yet. I'll wait for that to see what I'm facing. The default judgment says I'm entitled to recover any additional costs incurred.

So, what I think I'm seeing is intentional thwarting of due process. The dealership is trying to bypass the whole intention of small claims court. The facts and circumstances were never argued in lower court.

That's going to be my first argument. And does a default judgment for no-show really mean anything?

So, my point is that as Americans, due process in the rule of law should matter.

you forgot one point for the trumps admirers. immmigrants as they are bad when it fits their agenda ...

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

you forgot one point for the trumps admirers. immmigrants as they are bad when it fits their agenda ...

Around here, they are okay with immigrants when it's time to harvest the watermelon crop.

So the question for Canada…do legal immigrants have 100% protection citizens have or do they have rules they have to abide by before they can become citizens?
Can they break laws, become criminals and still be able to stay and become citizens?

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
So the question for Canada…do legal immigrants have 100% protection citizens have or do they have rules they have to abide by before they can become citizens?
Can they break laws, become criminals and still be able to stay and become citizens?

in canada you cannot become citizen if you break any laws related to criminal level and you will be deported if you are convicted of any criminal charges and you have a status that is not the one of the citizen ... but it has to be proven in court not just a decision of immigration officers ...

quote:

but it has to be proven in court

IOW, there is a burden of proof on the accuser, and due process per the rule of law. That's consistent with all western civilization governance principles.

That's not Trumpism.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

but it has to be proven in court

IOW, there is a burden of proof on the accuser, and due process per the rule of law. That's consistent with all western civilization governance principles.

That's not Trumpism.

i do not know about trumpism not living in your country nor planning before 4 years ... i replied about the reason for a legal immigrant to be not able to stay or getting the citizenship in canada ...

I just pointed out the similarity. The judiciary is the arbitrator, not the accuser.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I just pointed out the similarity. The judiciary is the arbitrator, not the accuser.

except that usa has done a little differently recently with their visitors ...