On another subject that I find interesting, yet very discouraging, is how many people, talk on the street, in letters to the editor, journalists, and public people will make a statement like "it's against the law to...." or "it's unconstitutional to..." without ever stating which law or which part of the Constitution they are relying on for their reasoning. The interesting part for me is that I'll actually look up the law or read the Articles or Bill of Rights to confirm or deny the claim. In most cases, the claims are utter horseshit and a 5-second google search would show this.
I'm always open to hearing the arguments, but they'd better come prepared and if they are relying on a law, they should state the law and state the part of the law they feel is relevant to their argument.
They aren't interested in truth; maybe because it undermines their narrative? They aren't interested in fairness either; maybe because their "moral imperative" is without foundation?
Jeff Keener: I tend to agree, but interpretations of how the law and the constitution should be applied to various human activities differ widely, even among so-called "experts" like Supreme Court justices and constitutional scholars. There is often substantial disagreement between conservatives, progressives, libertarians, etc.
That's certainly true, but it has to start out with stating which law and then a reading of the law. If the counterparty can't or won't do that, they have nothing to stand on.
I agree with what you wrote, but in some instances the disagreements are strained. It is quite obvious, for example, that Article 1, Section 8 of the federal Constitution forbades the President to levy tariffs, and it is quite obvious that the separation of powers is meaningless if Congress can delegate any of its powers to the President. (Alas, the government cannot operate per the Constitution, partly because the legislative branch is not up to what is legally required; and so pretense is used instead of resorting to the nearly impossible task of writing what works.)
There certainly is a lot of pretense going on in politics and public policy. Nobody wants to acknowledge "the elephant in the room" or admit that "the emperor has no clothes".
Dave, see the Trade Act of 1974, Section 301 and the Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both laws authorize the president to impose tariffs without the approval of congress.
Glad you brought that up. It's a good question. The Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the president to issue tariffs by proclamation and without congressional approval to counter unfair trade practices.
President Ford was the first to utilize the law (which he ratified) to impose a 60% tariff. Later, President Carter ratified the Emergency Economic Powers Act, which also authorizes POTUS to enact tariffs without congressional approval.
President Trump is using the authorization Congress gave to POTUS in both laws to support his tariffs. Whether Trump is using these laws propertly will be up to SCOTUS to debate and rule.
Oh, Due process, Posse Comitatus, Free of unusual searches and seizers (4th Amendment), etc.
The Insurrection Act requires an insurrection...and the only insurrection is the President who, as usual, attributes what he does to others. If you want to know what he's up to, just look at what he accuses others of doing. A negative personality can't see beyond their position. I'm trying hard to be polite in the face of your ignorance Jeff.
Read the law. You're just throwing out populist phrases and arguing from a platform of ignorance. I gave you the statutes on which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump was employing the National Guard lawfully. I know you can't be bothered to look it up, so I'll give it to you:
10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Impeding and obstructing federal law enforcement (likely including "sanctuary" declarations) qualifies as a form of rebellion against the authority of the United States. The most important word in the law is "Whenever". It's up to the president and no one else. This law is superior to the Posse Comitatus Act. Read the PC Act and you'll understand why. His decision is not reviewable by Congress or by the courts. His say is final.
Okay, now that you cannot deny that you have not read the law. Make your argument. You might want to read the ruling by the appellate court first because they go into great detail on the history and applicability of Title 10 and how it applies with what is going on in ICE-hostile cities and states. Here's a link for that:
That's a fussy level of pedantry, yikes! Shared knowledge is a thing, and public discourse isn't the academy, thank gawd. People don't talk like that in real life, nor should they be expected to.
I wonder if the outfits would deflate if hit with a water canon. Just thinking out loud. With the weather turning colder, hopefully they wouldn't be too cold.
If you care about civil liberties, Racket News is the wrong place for you. Everyone here, especially the owner, is a huge fascist who wants to see every Democrat murdered.
Here goes the aptly named Karen going off again with angry name calling and never ever associates the vomit coming out of her mouth to an objective news source. Angry, lonely, childless, manless women like this are becoming the van guard shock troops of the democrat party.
All that anger is so toxic, they're likely to die off of heart failure or apoplexy. I pity these wildly delusional souls, and pity is an emotion I reserve for those whom I would not be like for anything on earth.
Are you really this stupid?? Closed the border, began deporting all the illegals your decrepit corpse of a president let in, created operation warp speed for covid vaccine, will finish border wall this term, Abraham Accords, put three conservative justices on Supreme Court, negotiated better Trade agreements with many countries, funded Historically Black Colleges and Universities, created opportunity zones in the inner cities for minority business owners, negotiated an end to war in Gaza and SEVEN other ongoing wars, brought crime way down in DC and Memphis, created the Doace Force, got rid of DEI in government run operations especially the military. You complete moron I could go on but I think it answers your dumb question.🙋♂️
Spirit Halloween must have stocked up on adult costumes. Maybe not enough. But now they know, and for future No Kings Day events, their supply chain will be humming. In a lot of blue cities, they don't even need Spirit Halloween. Anyone can sublet a store that went out of business for the month before the event: No Kings Central. It will kill.
Actually, I saw a video of someone injecting "fart spray" into the inflation hole in one of the inflatable suits, and the reaction of the person wearing the suit was hilarious! They couldn't tear the suit off fast enough. 😂😂😂
That is a plus to winter, the protesters all seem to scatter when the weather turns cold.
Back in my teenage 80s days we would call the supposedly “hardcore” punk rock kids that didn’t hang out on The Corner in Cville during the colder months “ Summer Punks”. A devastating insult akin to “poseur”. These were the days that having a green mohawk would cause the regular folks cross the street out of fear. 🤣 Ah simpler times…
Democrats seem to think the No Kings protests are effective because “millions” of people participated. The most recent effective protests that I can think of were unconventional. Gov. Abbots busing of migrants to sanctuary cities certainly highlighted a problem in need of a solution. And the one women protest by Riley Gaines against biological men competing in women’s sports spread as others joined in her crusade. No violence, deaths or property damage in either of these “protests”. A few people with a good idea or compelling issue are far more effective than five million people with a vague aim and what they think is a catchy phrase.
DeSantis landing a planeload of illegal immigrants in Martha's Vineyard was the funniest in my opinion, and very effective. The response was pure hypocrisy.
Did anyone else notice how at the protests ended at the same time ?Seems as if the protesters were on the clock and their commitment lasted only as long as they were ‘incentivized’ (paid) to be there.
So, here's another funny angle to the "No Kings" movement. The organizers held these in Europe too, where some of the countries exist as constitutional monarchies. The organizers had to change the theme to "No Tyrants" since in most of those countries, the majority of the people love their kings and queens. Reasons given include: stability and continuity.
So, in regards to "No Kings", it would seem (for us boomers who remember) that Arte Johnson would say, "Velly intelesting, but schtupid!"
Here on Maui, Hawaii they amusingly called it No Dictators. Too many long-established locals *prefer a king*, like the days pre-U.S. annexation, over a governor or president.
How can a mature adult look at this theater and not think, "unserious and infantilized"? I thought that another reason they may be wearing these costumes is to hide their identity and to create a bubble of air around them to prevent injury. Otherwise, it's just a self-owning performance for other unserious demonstrators.
It astounds me how many comments in here are critiquing the method of protesting. I noticed this is common in Racket News, it's as if no protest method when coming from the left is acceptable. But when it's a trucker protest in Canada or a Covid lockdown protest it's righteous and hailed as pure. Just take a moment to recognize your own internal biases. In a thriving democracy people have the right to protest virtually anything and everything. It's healthy and should be encouraged, whether you agree with the antics, method or whatever.
It astounds me too, no matter how many times I encounter it. They're protesting a growing, shadowy, and straight-up scary federal police force that acts with utter impunity, but the protesters are criticized and insulted. Someone on this thread called them "unserious and infantile." If they protested without the costumes, they'd be called potentially violent and jailable.
Of course, for the Racket News crowd, the protesters must be criticized and smeared because they're protesting the wrong things. Full stop.
The First Amendment gave both the George Floyd protesters and the January 6th protesters "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Obviously, the Establishment encouraged the former but reacted violently to the latter.
Thomas Jefferson stated that a certain amount of violence was acceptable in heartfelt, even if wrong, protest:
I certainly agree with the right to protest the government as warranted by the First Amendment and if people want to look silly and unserious doing it, I totally support them.
Taibbi is a Nazi because Taibbi hates women. Why does it surprise you that Nazis hate protests? Seriously, there are lots better Substacks. This one is even too boring to hate-read anymore.
I've been bemused for days by the number of commentators who think the costumes are a brilliant new innovation. Am I the only one who remembers the papier-mache puppets of old?
Some compare these children's costumes to the regalia that the Tea Party sported, but there is a big difference. Dressing up as Revolutionary-era colonialists is directly related to the pro-constitutionalist bent of the demonstrators and of the movement. Not so with frog, dinosaur, & unicorn costumes.... unless that's really how these people see themselves, totally departed from their theme of "No Kings".
Mature adults can't. Not even every octogenarian is a mature adult, functionally speaking. And there's a real and scary trend to freeze us psychoemotionally in adolescence, and to rush children into that state ASAP, and keep them there. Not conducive to the flourishment of the species.
There was at least one furry, right after the person yelling about his fantasy of beating ICE officers heads in. It was doing an Ace Ventura-style hip thrust in the direction of the ICE guys.
I doubt the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man costumes have strategically-placed flaps. One probably has to take it off to get down to business.
I'm struck by the inability of the protesters to articulate their position beyond multiple f bombs and violent and sexual slurs. Left not sending their best.
So, here's another funny irony with the No Kings people. They will say that they are exercising their right to free speech because America is a free country.... yet, they're protesting someone who they regard as their king. Free speech, as warranted by our First Amendment, does not exist in a monarchy.
"Free speech, as warranted by our First Amendment, does not exist in..." any other country at all, regardless of government. Those who exercised it were protesting someone who acts as if he regards himself as a king, not who they regard as a king. Actually, he acts likes a Mafioso Don.
Correction: He acts like an incompetent Mafioso Don. Empty threats to other powers-Russia and China for example, not mention Venezuela now. And cruel indifference to the powerless.
This no kings thing is funded by the usual suspects to the 280 M number. (One fellow posted their financial report. Sorry I did not copy it) That will buy a good number of gas mask.
It is still hard for me to watch adults behave in such a ridiculous manner.
Even if they are getting paid. We are being invaded. And purposefully. These invaders are not the sort of people that built this country. Why can’t these protesters see that? I just don’t get it.
They are protesting the abolishment of capitalism and free markets, seizing the means of production, destroying the nuclear family, erasing Christianity and Judaism, defunding law enforcement, reopening the borders, censoring speech, packing the Supreme Court, rationing energy and health care, overturning our civil order and uprooting Western civilization. Oops, sorry. Those are the things they support.
Who died? There were no arrests in NYC, which had 100K people turn out. Here in Austin we had 20K turnout and the only arrests were Trump counterprotesters (about 10 I think.) Between 7 and 8 million people turned out and there were no incidents of violence at all.
On another subject that I find interesting, yet very discouraging, is how many people, talk on the street, in letters to the editor, journalists, and public people will make a statement like "it's against the law to...." or "it's unconstitutional to..." without ever stating which law or which part of the Constitution they are relying on for their reasoning. The interesting part for me is that I'll actually look up the law or read the Articles or Bill of Rights to confirm or deny the claim. In most cases, the claims are utter horseshit and a 5-second google search would show this.
They sound like the Sovereign Citizens buffoons when they do that 🤡
I'm always open to hearing the arguments, but they'd better come prepared and if they are relying on a law, they should state the law and state the part of the law they feel is relevant to their argument.
They've heard it on TV
Which bears zero accountability or responsibility for gaslighting or misinforming their viewers.
I bet. Who gets a legal advice from TV?
Or read it in the New York Times.
They aren't interested in truth; maybe because it undermines their narrative? They aren't interested in fairness either; maybe because their "moral imperative" is without foundation?
Protest For Profit!
Jeff Keener: I tend to agree, but interpretations of how the law and the constitution should be applied to various human activities differ widely, even among so-called "experts" like Supreme Court justices and constitutional scholars. There is often substantial disagreement between conservatives, progressives, libertarians, etc.
That's certainly true, but it has to start out with stating which law and then a reading of the law. If the counterparty can't or won't do that, they have nothing to stand on.
Agreed.
I agree with what you wrote, but in some instances the disagreements are strained. It is quite obvious, for example, that Article 1, Section 8 of the federal Constitution forbades the President to levy tariffs, and it is quite obvious that the separation of powers is meaningless if Congress can delegate any of its powers to the President. (Alas, the government cannot operate per the Constitution, partly because the legislative branch is not up to what is legally required; and so pretense is used instead of resorting to the nearly impossible task of writing what works.)
There certainly is a lot of pretense going on in politics and public policy. Nobody wants to acknowledge "the elephant in the room" or admit that "the emperor has no clothes".
Dave, see the Trade Act of 1974, Section 301 and the Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both laws authorize the president to impose tariffs without the approval of congress.
Glad you brought that up. It's a good question. The Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the president to issue tariffs by proclamation and without congressional approval to counter unfair trade practices.
"Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows the President to impose retaliatory tariffs to counteract unfair foreign trade practices." -- https://www.usconstitution.net/executive-tariff-authority/
President Ford was the first to utilize the law (which he ratified) to impose a 60% tariff. Later, President Carter ratified the Emergency Economic Powers Act, which also authorizes POTUS to enact tariffs without congressional approval.
President Trump is using the authorization Congress gave to POTUS in both laws to support his tariffs. Whether Trump is using these laws propertly will be up to SCOTUS to debate and rule.
Thanks for the reference! I never stop studying poli sci, and I posted your remarks to a booklet I keep on constitutional & legal references.
I think there was also a law authorizing Presidential tariffs that was passed in 1993, but I don't have the reference handy, & I might be wrong.
I do have two links you might find interesting.
The issue of separation of powers not quite working goes back to 1825. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S1-1-1/ALDE_00000009/
You might already be familiar with the content of this discussion posted by the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-1/background-on-delegating-legislative-power.
Thx again!
The Constitution is a small book, a little boring in places, but pretty easy to understand.
Armed, masked, unidentified soldiers shooting projectiles into unarmed citizens are prohibited (whatever SCOTUS says).
You're going to have to do better than that. What part of the Constitution do you believe supports your opinion?
What do you say about the constitutionality of the Insurrection Act, particularly, 10 U.S. Code § 252 and 10 U.S. Code § 12406?
Oh, Due process, Posse Comitatus, Free of unusual searches and seizers (4th Amendment), etc.
The Insurrection Act requires an insurrection...and the only insurrection is the President who, as usual, attributes what he does to others. If you want to know what he's up to, just look at what he accuses others of doing. A negative personality can't see beyond their position. I'm trying hard to be polite in the face of your ignorance Jeff.
Read the law. You're just throwing out populist phrases and arguing from a platform of ignorance. I gave you the statutes on which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump was employing the National Guard lawfully. I know you can't be bothered to look it up, so I'll give it to you:
10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Impeding and obstructing federal law enforcement (likely including "sanctuary" declarations) qualifies as a form of rebellion against the authority of the United States. The most important word in the law is "Whenever". It's up to the president and no one else. This law is superior to the Posse Comitatus Act. Read the PC Act and you'll understand why. His decision is not reviewable by Congress or by the courts. His say is final.
Okay, now that you cannot deny that you have not read the law. Make your argument. You might want to read the ruling by the appellate court first because they go into great detail on the history and applicability of Title 10 and how it applies with what is going on in ICE-hostile cities and states. Here's a link for that:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150.61.0.pdf
So, look. Stop arguing from ignorance. It's obvious you've never bothered to research the subject even on its most basic level, by reading the law.
That's a fussy level of pedantry, yikes! Shared knowledge is a thing, and public discourse isn't the academy, thank gawd. People don't talk like that in real life, nor should they be expected to.
It's just too hard, eh? 🙄
Assuming the audience cross references all that or cares to? Over half the people in this country can't read better than sixth graders.
I wonder if the outfits would deflate if hit with a water canon. Just thinking out loud. With the weather turning colder, hopefully they wouldn't be too cold.
I also hate it when people protest to defend the rights of others! Hell yeah bro let's go take car selfies with sunglasses on
If you care about civil liberties, Racket News is the wrong place for you. Everyone here, especially the owner, is a huge fascist who wants to see every Democrat murdered.
Here goes the aptly named Karen going off again with angry name calling and never ever associates the vomit coming out of her mouth to an objective news source. Angry, lonely, childless, manless women like this are becoming the van guard shock troops of the democrat party.
All that anger is so toxic, they're likely to die off of heart failure or apoplexy. I pity these wildly delusional souls, and pity is an emotion I reserve for those whom I would not be like for anything on earth.
See Karen? They don't want to see you murdered. Some pity you as they enjoy fantasizing about your self-inflicted death.
Why shouldn’t I be angry? Trump is destroying everything good and decent in all of civilization.
What benefit do you Trumpers get from worshipping him? What one single good thing has he ever done in his entire waste-of-oxygen life?
Can you provide me with one single example of a good thing Trump has ever done?
Are you really this stupid?? Closed the border, began deporting all the illegals your decrepit corpse of a president let in, created operation warp speed for covid vaccine, will finish border wall this term, Abraham Accords, put three conservative justices on Supreme Court, negotiated better Trade agreements with many countries, funded Historically Black Colleges and Universities, created opportunity zones in the inner cities for minority business owners, negotiated an end to war in Gaza and SEVEN other ongoing wars, brought crime way down in DC and Memphis, created the Doace Force, got rid of DEI in government run operations especially the military. You complete moron I could go on but I think it answers your dumb question.🙋♂️
Also, not one war has even paused thanks to Trûmp. He’s made Gaza ànd Ukraine much, much worse.
Other than the vaccine everything you list is either a lie, a catastrophe, or a grift.
How utterly ridiculous.
Spirit Halloween must have stocked up on adult costumes. Maybe not enough. But now they know, and for future No Kings Day events, their supply chain will be humming. In a lot of blue cities, they don't even need Spirit Halloween. Anyone can sublet a store that went out of business for the month before the event: No Kings Central. It will kill.
Or hopefully they’d catch a terrible cold and have to stay home letting Mommy feed them soup.
Nah, but they might just float away!
Actually, I saw a video of someone injecting "fart spray" into the inflation hole in one of the inflatable suits, and the reaction of the person wearing the suit was hilarious! They couldn't tear the suit off fast enough. 😂😂😂
That is a plus to winter, the protesters all seem to scatter when the weather turns cold.
Back in my teenage 80s days we would call the supposedly “hardcore” punk rock kids that didn’t hang out on The Corner in Cville during the colder months “ Summer Punks”. A devastating insult akin to “poseur”. These were the days that having a green mohawk would cause the regular folks cross the street out of fear. 🤣 Ah simpler times…
Democrats seem to think the No Kings protests are effective because “millions” of people participated. The most recent effective protests that I can think of were unconventional. Gov. Abbots busing of migrants to sanctuary cities certainly highlighted a problem in need of a solution. And the one women protest by Riley Gaines against biological men competing in women’s sports spread as others joined in her crusade. No violence, deaths or property damage in either of these “protests”. A few people with a good idea or compelling issue are far more effective than five million people with a vague aim and what they think is a catchy phrase.
DeSantis landing a planeload of illegal immigrants in Martha's Vineyard was the funniest in my opinion, and very effective. The response was pure hypocrisy.
Agreed!
Yeah, but Riley didn't dress up as a furry.
I don’t think she thought it would enhance her credibility.
Did anyone else notice how at the protests ended at the same time ?Seems as if the protesters were on the clock and their commitment lasted only as long as they were ‘incentivized’ (paid) to be there.
So, here's another funny angle to the "No Kings" movement. The organizers held these in Europe too, where some of the countries exist as constitutional monarchies. The organizers had to change the theme to "No Tyrants" since in most of those countries, the majority of the people love their kings and queens. Reasons given include: stability and continuity.
So, in regards to "No Kings", it would seem (for us boomers who remember) that Arte Johnson would say, "Velly intelesting, but schtupid!"
Here on Maui, Hawaii they amusingly called it No Dictators. Too many long-established locals *prefer a king*, like the days pre-U.S. annexation, over a governor or president.
That's because the governor is more concerned with real estate developers than he is with the people of Maui.
Ha! That's funny.
They say they want no kings, but dress up like fools and court jesters. Go figure.
Didn't see anybody dressed like that. Any photos?
🙄
Freaks gonna' freak.
How can a mature adult look at this theater and not think, "unserious and infantilized"? I thought that another reason they may be wearing these costumes is to hide their identity and to create a bubble of air around them to prevent injury. Otherwise, it's just a self-owning performance for other unserious demonstrators.
It astounds me how many comments in here are critiquing the method of protesting. I noticed this is common in Racket News, it's as if no protest method when coming from the left is acceptable. But when it's a trucker protest in Canada or a Covid lockdown protest it's righteous and hailed as pure. Just take a moment to recognize your own internal biases. In a thriving democracy people have the right to protest virtually anything and everything. It's healthy and should be encouraged, whether you agree with the antics, method or whatever.
It astounds me too, no matter how many times I encounter it. They're protesting a growing, shadowy, and straight-up scary federal police force that acts with utter impunity, but the protesters are criticized and insulted. Someone on this thread called them "unserious and infantile." If they protested without the costumes, they'd be called potentially violent and jailable.
Of course, for the Racket News crowd, the protesters must be criticized and smeared because they're protesting the wrong things. Full stop.
As Antifa and the pro-Gaza protesters have shown, they can wear silly costumes and still be violent.
The First Amendment gave both the George Floyd protesters and the January 6th protesters "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Obviously, the Establishment encouraged the former but reacted violently to the latter.
Thomas Jefferson stated that a certain amount of violence was acceptable in heartfelt, even if wrong, protest:
laphamsquarterly.org/revolutions/tree-liberty
As did Frederick Douglass:
blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress/
Tolerance to protests, particularly against our leaders, is necessary for an effective voice.
I certainly agree with the right to protest the government as warranted by the First Amendment and if people want to look silly and unserious doing it, I totally support them.
Excellent point. I was somewhat impressed by the turnout.
Taibbi is a Nazi because Taibbi hates women. Why does it surprise you that Nazis hate protests? Seriously, there are lots better Substacks. This one is even too boring to hate-read anymore.
Oh, Karen!
A dim bulb indeed😂
Don’t let the door hit you OTW out honey!
😂🤣😂🤣
I've been bemused for days by the number of commentators who think the costumes are a brilliant new innovation. Am I the only one who remembers the papier-mache puppets of old?
Some compare these children's costumes to the regalia that the Tea Party sported, but there is a big difference. Dressing up as Revolutionary-era colonialists is directly related to the pro-constitutionalist bent of the demonstrators and of the movement. Not so with frog, dinosaur, & unicorn costumes.... unless that's really how these people see themselves, totally departed from their theme of "No Kings".
The costumes are infantile so probably appropriate given who’s wearing them (which they are being paid to do by liberal millionaires).
Do you support these onesies?
They're kind of cute, but more importantly, did Pfizer tell you to ask me that?
As long as they support me.😉
The better question is…
Will these onesies give me support.
Mature adults can't. Not even every octogenarian is a mature adult, functionally speaking. And there's a real and scary trend to freeze us psychoemotionally in adolescence, and to rush children into that state ASAP, and keep them there. Not conducive to the flourishment of the species.
I believe that’s the rule, not the exception…
With the "softening" mentioned, I thought they were related to furries, it's the same idea.
There was at least one furry, right after the person yelling about his fantasy of beating ICE officers heads in. It was doing an Ace Ventura-style hip thrust in the direction of the ICE guys.
I doubt the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man costumes have strategically-placed flaps. One probably has to take it off to get down to business.
Still unserious and infantile.
I bet. Not "still".
Geez it’s embarrassing to say I’m even from Oregon these days! (Bend)
I'm struck by the inability of the protesters to articulate their position beyond multiple f bombs and violent and sexual slurs. Left not sending their best.
So, here's another funny irony with the No Kings people. They will say that they are exercising their right to free speech because America is a free country.... yet, they're protesting someone who they regard as their king. Free speech, as warranted by our First Amendment, does not exist in a monarchy.
"Free speech, as warranted by our First Amendment, does not exist in..." any other country at all, regardless of government. Those who exercised it were protesting someone who acts as if he regards himself as a king, not who they regard as a king. Actually, he acts likes a Mafioso Don.
Oh? How so?
Correction: He acts like an incompetent Mafioso Don. Empty threats to other powers-Russia and China for example, not mention Venezuela now. And cruel indifference to the powerless.
So lame. You have got to do better than that.
That's a pretzel argument, bro.
This no kings thing is funded by the usual suspects to the 280 M number. (One fellow posted their financial report. Sorry I did not copy it) That will buy a good number of gas mask.
It is still hard for me to watch adults behave in such a ridiculous manner.
Even if they are getting paid. We are being invaded. And purposefully. These invaders are not the sort of people that built this country. Why can’t these protesters see that? I just don’t get it.
Inflatables outfits may protect against pepper ball shots
They are protesting the abolishment of capitalism and free markets, seizing the means of production, destroying the nuclear family, erasing Christianity and Judaism, defunding law enforcement, reopening the borders, censoring speech, packing the Supreme Court, rationing energy and health care, overturning our civil order and uprooting Western civilization. Oops, sorry. Those are the things they support.
Congrats to Ford and Greg for the pithy intro - homicidal maniacs wandering around in inflatable animal costumes.
Who died? There were no arrests in NYC, which had 100K people turn out. Here in Austin we had 20K turnout and the only arrests were Trump counterprotesters (about 10 I think.) Between 7 and 8 million people turned out and there were no incidents of violence at all.
Does Portland want to secede? Go ahead, but don't ask for federal funding.
Where every day is Halloween.