Hey guys, I gotta lock this. There’s too much devolving into personal attacks and a shit ton of troll baiting. Weekends and major events are ripe for that, we had both this weekend. Please don’t fall for it.
Hillary Clinton too.
I wasn’t old enough to be politically involved when Al Gore ran, but I heard he had good policies. How many people can tell you what policies Kamala ran on?
Harris ran on a continuation of existing beneficial politics with a trend of effectiveness and some tuning after she took over the post.
In short, her position was
** gestures at 4 years of positive tending numbers **
. Oh: and not fucking up the treason trial for Trump.
But the sparkle junkies need everything to pop-pop-pop, so incremental improvement wasnt as good as destruction of America.
Well, get over it. Incremental change is over forever, your way failed. It’s time to do things our way now, because liberal democracy is dead.
Yep, that checks out
I seem to remember something about a genocide, too.
Good thing Trump ended that huh
She was pro fracking. Got to line those pockets afterall.
And Trump? What’s his policy about the environment? Please, do enlighten us!
As always, any criticism for harris is interpreted in bad faith as support for trump.
No argument, no talking points, no facts, no sources, just a biased opinion and a salty comment.
That’s not criticism. That’s badmouthing.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
She was pro fracking.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
I’m so f… tired of the double standard.
I’m tired of these people pointing at one candidate’s speck of dust, while ignoring the other candidate’s plank to justify not voting against a fascist dictator.
You assume that about anyone with any criticism whatsoever of harris.
I voted for harris; you just can’t abide anything other than unconditional worship of her.
Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t far left enough. And so, because of that one specific detail, that as enough to tip the balance and swing the vote for the guy who is not only very pro fracking, but also for destroying the entire ecosystem and environment scorched-earth style.
And you’re doubling down on the bad faith assumption that criticism of harris is support for trump.
I wasn’t criticizing your comment. I never implied that you had voted for the other guy.
And I have no worship for her. She’s a politician. I only had hope, for the country and for the world, that the other guy wouldn’t take power.
She was pro fracking. Got to line those pockets afterall.
A lot was implied in that comment the person wrote. Implying that she is corrupt.
That isn’t criticism. That is badmouthing.
And that is what I have a problem with. The double standard, and the gratuitous smearing. That’s what revolts me. That’s what upsets me.
So you think increasing military spending in exchange for having no healthcare, and supporting a genocide is correct?
I’m so glad that the one that did win ended the genocide, got us universal healthcare, and decreased military spending… oh wait…
Wow, it’s almost as if there wasn’t a proper candidate?
Harris was the correct option.
only option.
Clearly not, she lost
Welcome to the reality of the broken US voting system bud
And instead of doing anything to fix it, I’m jerking off to what would have happened if another terrible candidate would have won.
Yes it’s truly macho to lose elections. Big muscle energy. This person is stoked to lose the next one. As long as they’re “correct”… jfc.
The President deploying Marines inside the U.S. without invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring an emergency, or getting local/state approval — especially just to respond to peaceful protests — is unlawful on multiple levels:
- Violates DoD Directive 3025.18 – Active-duty military (including Marines) can’t engage in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized.
- Violates the First Amendment – Peaceful protest is protected. Military suppression = unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886).
- Violates the Fourth Amendment – Military detentions/searches are illegal without cause. (Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32).
- Ignores Posse Comitatus limits – PCA (18 U.S.C. § 1385) applies to Army/Air Force, but DoD extends it to all branches.
- Unlawful military orders – Troops must disobey unconstitutional orders (UCMJ Art. 92; U.S. v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19).
- Impeachable abuse of power – Violates Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This isn’t just controversial — it’s flat-out illegal.
EDIT: Formatting EDIT: Better Citations: (DoDI 3025.21, Enclosure 3, Section 3)
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302521p.pdf
- EXCEPTIONS BASED ON MILITARY SERVICE. By policy, Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (as well as other restrictions in this Instruction) are applicable to the Department of the Navy (including the Marine Corps) with such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense may authorize in advance on a case-by-case basis.
LISTED EXCEPTIONS
a. Such exceptions shall include requests from the AG for assistance pursuant to section 873(b) of Reference (al). b. Requests for approval of other exceptions should be made by a senior official of the civilian law enforcement agency concerned, who verifies that: (1) The size or scope of the suspected criminal activity poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States and enforcement of a law within the jurisdiction of the civilian agency would be seriously impaired if the assistance were not provided because civilian assets are not available to perform the mission; or (2) Civilian law enforcement assets are not available to perform the mission, and temporary assistance is required on an emergency basis to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property. 4. MILITARY READINESS. Assistance may not be provided if such assistance could adversely affect military preparedness. Implementing documents issued by the Heads of the DoD Components shall ensure that approval for the disposition of equipment is vested in officials who can assess the effect of such disposition on military preparedness. 5. APPROVAL AUTHORITY. Requests by civilian law enforcement officials for use of DoD personnel to provide assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies shall be forwarded to the appropriate approval authority. a. The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for requests for direct assistance in support of civilian law enforcement agencies, including those responding with assets with the potential for lethality, except for the use of emergency authority as provided in subparagraph 1.b.(3) of this enclosure and in Reference ©, and except as otherwise provided below. b. Requests that involve Defense Intelligence and Counterintelligence entities are subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense and the guidance in DoDD 5240.01(Reference (ar)) and Reference (j). 24 Change 1, 02/08/2019 ENCLOSURE 3 DoDI 3025.21, February 27, 2013 c. The Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies may, in coordination with the ASD(HD&GS), approve the use of DoD personnel: (1) To provide training or expert advice in accordance with paragraphs 1.e. and 1.f. of this enclosure. (2) For equipment maintenance in accordance with paragraph 1.d. of this enclosure. (3) To monitor and communicate the movement of air and sea traffic in accordance with subparagraphs 1.d.(5)(b) 1 and 4 of this enclosure. d. All other requests, including those in which subordinate authorities recommend disapproval, shall be submitted promptly to the ASD(HD&GS) for consideration by the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate. e. The views of the CJCS shall be obtained on all requests that are considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS), that otherwise involve personnel assigned to a unified or specified command, or that may affect military preparedness. f. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of Reserve Component personnel or equipment shall be coordinated with the ASD(M&RA). All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG personnel also shall be coordinated with the Chief, NGB. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG equipment also shall be coordinated with the Secretary of the Military Department concerned and the Chief, NGB.
deleted by creator
I said he would eventually place armed soldiers on every street corner
I will stand by that prediction
Watch the news try to play it like it’s the Marines not the army so Kamala lied.
Hillary was right. Harris was right. Misogyny ignored them.
And then Harris completely disappeared as soon as the election was over, failing to challenge his extremely questionable victory in any meaningful way
If she had challenged it, she probably wouldn’t have won the challenge, AND she would have fueled a whole smattering of “SEE, BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME” bs
This is the same flawed logic as the folks saying that violent resistance will give the other side a “justification”, they’re gonna make one up anyway so there’s absolutely no point in abstaining from any given course of action for the sake of not giving them one. Even if it hadn’t worked it would have demonstrated some commitment to actually stopping Trump, but corporate dems don’t actually give a shit what happens as long as they’re still getting paid.
