China Trolls U.S. Over Protests After Trump Criticized Hong Kong

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by Tiny

A question, say the U.S. federal government sends the military into a city uninvited to control rioting and looting. What's the difference between that and the Peoples Republic of China sending the PLA into Hong Kong to do something about people who are rioting, damaging property, and shutting down the city?

I'm not in favor of either, and thankfully neither has happened. Yet.

Trying to be contrarian - if u really do not understand the difference , tiny - Consider a few Words



Constitution and Bill of Rights - leading to Rule of Law.


If that does lead to understanding - then please sell, ur house, pool all ur assets in thousand dollar bills, and go wave them in front of a crowd of looters at 3am in a town which chooses not to protect innocent citizens.
you will learn the difference.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

Black people in the Estados Unidos have it far better than black people in China or anywhere else.

I guess that is why so many black people want to move here, to a country run by racists, than to move to some glorious and well run country in Africa, run by black people.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The fact that the shamefulness of your statement is lost on you really says it all.

why do you claim fred is wrong? are you a denier? someone who denies black tribal involvement in African slavery? who denies the long history of black on black violence in Africa? Africa is by far a black majority in the continent at least 90% overall. kinda hard to blame whitey there yeah?

[oeb11]

TWK - the poster is playing the victim card - and the Whitey is Racist card - trying to extort money out of "guilty" white liberals.

al Sharpton has been very successful selling "white Racism" to stupid liberals.

Poster is just trying to get on the bandwagon.

Purported Law Practice must be slow - even with lots and lots of looters with pants down out there.


The most virulent racists out in our society today are the Black race-Baiters leaders who refuse to accept any progress in race relations - just as Arafat refused a settlement for the palestianians in order to prolong the conflict in hopes of destroying Israel.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by oeb11

just as Arafat refused a settlement for the palestianians in order to prolong the conflict in hopes of destroying Israel.

Yessuh! Yasir, he did, Yasir! Yowza!

quite the left turn there, huh?

what "settlement" should Al Sharpton be accepting, that would in any way justify an analogous absurdity of this magnitude?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Trying to be contrarian - if u really do not understand the difference , tiny - Consider a few Words



Constitution and Bill of Rights - leading to Rule of Law.


If that does lead to understanding - then please sell, ur house, pool all ur assets in thousand dollar bills, and go wave them in front of a crowd of looters at 3am in a town which chooses not to protect innocent citizens.
you will learn the difference.

Agreed. Tiny kinda went stupid on that one.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11
just as Arafat refused a settlement for the palestianians in order to prolong the conflict in hopes of destroying Israel.

this is correct

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Yessuh! Yasir, he did, Yasir! Yowza!

quite the left turn there, huh?

what "settlement" should Al Sharpton be accepting, that would in any way justify an analogous absurdity of this magnitude?

Al who?

As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/n...influence.html


By Russ Buettner
Nov. 18, 2014



The Rev. Al Sharpton, who came to prominence as an imposing figure in a track suit, shouting indignantly at the powerful, stood quietly on a stage last month at the Four Seasons restaurant, his now slender frame wrapped in a finely tailored suit, as men in power lined up to exclaim their admiration for him.


Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo hailed him as a civil rights icon. President Obama sent an aide to read a message commending Mr. Sharpton’s “dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.” Major corporations sponsored the lavish affair.


It was billed as a “party for a cause,” in honor of Mr. Sharpton’s 60th birthday. But more than a birthday celebration, or a fund-raiser for his nonprofit advocacy group National Action Network, the event in Manhattan seemed to mark the completion of Mr. Sharpton’s decades of transition from consummate outsider to improbable insider.


“I’ve been able to reach from the streets to the suites,” he said that night.


Indeed, Mr. Sharpton’s influence and visibility have reached new heights this year, fueled by his close relationships with the mayor and the president.


Obscured in his ascent, however, has been his troubling financial past, which continues to shadow his present.

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Yessuh! Yasir, he did, Yasir! Yowza!

quite the left turn there, huh?

what "settlement" should Al Sharpton be accepting, that would in any way justify an analogous absurdity of this magnitude?

CT- You are the liberal Sharpton supporter - you propose where the black nation of
sharpton should be located.
Starting with your Yard.

Quite the image - viet shouting black "Pants down" - very funny CT!
next - how about an roast of comrade Xi!

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11
just as Arafat refused a settlement for the palestianians in order to prolong the conflict in hopes of destroying Israel.

this is correct





Al who?

As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/n...influence.html


By Russ Buettner
Nov. 18, 2014



The Rev. Al Sharpton, who came to prominence as an imposing figure in a track suit, shouting indignantly at the powerful, stood quietly on a stage last month at the Four Seasons restaurant, his now slender frame wrapped in a finely tailored suit, as men in power lined up to exclaim their admiration for him.


Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo hailed him as a civil rights icon. President Obama sent an aide to read a message commending Mr. Sharpton’s “dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.” Major corporations sponsored the lavish affair.


It was billed as a “party for a cause,” in honor of Mr. Sharpton’s 60th birthday. But more than a birthday celebration, or a fund-raiser for his nonprofit advocacy group National Action Network, the event in Manhattan seemed to mark the completion of Mr. Sharpton’s decades of transition from consummate outsider to improbable insider.


“I’ve been able to reach from the streets to the suites,” he said that night.


Indeed, Mr. Sharpton’s influence and visibility have reached new heights this year, fueled by his close relationships with the mayor and the president.


Obscured in his ascent, however, has been his troubling financial past, which continues to shadow his present.

Sharpton and taxes, H.. and Bill and their Foundation Crooked FBI - the DPST elitist corruption never ends.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Trying to be contrarian - if u really do not understand the difference , tiny - Consider a few Words



Constitution and Bill of Rights - leading to Rule of Law.


If that does lead to understanding - then please sell, ur house, pool all ur assets in thousand dollar bills, and go wave them in front of a crowd of looters at 3am in a town which chooses not to protect innocent citizens.
you will learn the difference.

From the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

If the federal government sends the military into a city or state uninvited, that probably violates the Bill of Rights or laws.

Did I go stupid? Maybe. This isn't going to happen, it's just Trump spouting off for political purposes.

I hold my state, county and city governments in high regard, and the Central Committee of the Peoples Republic of China in low regard. My opinion of the U.S. federal government is somewhere in between. I like many Texans would not look kindly on federal troops entering the state uninvited to quell an insurrection, or rioting, or looting or whatever you want to call it. I imagine people in Minnesota and other places feel similarly.

Again, a moot point, it won't happen.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Yessuh! Yasir, he did, Yasir! Yowza!

quite the left turn there, huh?

what "settlement" should Al Sharpton be accepting, that would in any way justify an analogous absurdity of this magnitude?

How about Beverly Hills to start? Then add Highland Park, River Oaks, etc. It would be just like the multiple Palestinian settlements on the West Bank located inside of Israeli controlled territory.

[oeb11]

Liberals are very generous in offering other people's homes and business properties to al sharpton in reparations for White oppression and slavery.



not so much their own homes and businesses.

Only those from conservatives folks.

using Highland Park in dallas as an offering - typical.

[oeb11]

Tiny - couple Federal laws - affecting the POTUS ability to deploy US troops to US states -

Domestic deployments are often controversial due to the Posse Comitatus Act which limits, but not entirely prohibits, active duty military deployments on U.S. soil. States can make requests for civil assistance to the Pentagon and there have been exceptions.Mar 16, 2020

March 3, 1807. The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. ... §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy military troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
Long title: An Act authorizing the employment of ...


Enacted by: the 9th United States Congress


Effective: March 3, 1807


https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...ps-into-cities

Can President Trump Really Order Troops Into Cities?

n his speech in the Rose Garden on Monday evening, President Trump said, “If the city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” Can he do that? Can the President send the U.S. military into a state, even when the governor of that state doesn’t ask for its assistance, or even if the governor actively opposes such a step?The answer is no, probably. The reasons relate to a venerable principle in American law: that the military should stay away from actions on domestic soil. One of the founding principles of the Republic was that the federal military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement. But, over the years, the law has carved out certain narrow exceptions to that rule, notably in the form of the Insurrection Act, from 1807. This law says that “whenever there is an insurrection in any state against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or its governor,” call in the armed forces. So that seems pretty simple. The President can bring in the military only if a governor or a state requests it. In recent years, the law has been invoked only when governors have requested the assistance of federal troops, such as in 1992, when California sought help in quelling the rioting after the acquittals in the Rodney King case. (Similarly, in 1967, Governor George Romney, of Michigan, requested federal troops to control riots in Detroit.) Now, however, the governors of California, Illinois, and Michigan have all made it clear that they will not seek the involvement of federal troops in their efforts to handle disturbances in their states.
Video From The New Yorker
George Floyd’s Death Sets Off a Wave of Protests

But that’s not the end of the story. There is another provision of the Insurrection Act that arguably gives the President greater unilateral authority. This provision states that, when the President determines that there are unlawful activities which “make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States,” he may call in the armed forces. It was passed in 1956, in order to give Presidents the authority to enforce civil-rights laws. President Eisenhower invoked it to send Army troops to enforce the integration of the public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. It’s unclear whether the law, which was based on the protection of constitutional rights, would give Trump the authority he wants to overrule governors today.
In other words, there appears to be some ambiguity about the President’s authority to do what he promised to do. It may be, of course, that Trump merely wanted to threaten the use of the military without ever intending to follow through. On Monday, the President was governing by spectacle—ordering the clearing of peaceful protesters so that he could stage a photo opportunity with a Bible at a nearby church. The threat to send troops was a similarly showy gesture. Trump was trying to look tougher than the governors, but he didn’t take any actual responsibility for bringing calm to the country. If he were to send troops, the burden would be on him to show results.
In all likelihood, then, there will not be the clashes that the President’s remarks portend. He will not send troops into a state that doesn’t want them. But, in threatening to do so, Trump has shredded another norm. He has abused his power in yet another way, extending his legacy of lawlessness and authoritarianism, with more such abuses likely in the months to come.


Jeffrey Toobin has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1993 and the senior legal analyst for CNN since 2002. He is the author of, most recently, “American Heiress” and is at work on a book about Robert Mueller’s investigation.


Hardly from an arch conservative site / author.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Tiny - couple Federal laws - affecting the POTUS ability to deploy US troops to US states -

Domestic deployments are often controversial due to the Posse Comitatus Act which limits, but not entirely prohibits, active duty military deployments on U.S. soil. States can make requests for civil assistance to the Pentagon and there have been exceptions.Mar 16, 2020

March 3, 1807. The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. ... §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy military troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
Long title: An Act authorizing the employment of ...


Enacted by: the 9th United States Congress


Effective: March 3, 1807


https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...ps-into-cities

Can President Trump Really Order Troops Into Cities?

n his speech in the Rose Garden on Monday evening, President Trump said, “If the city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” Can he do that? Can the President send the U.S. military into a state, even when the governor of that state doesn’t ask for its assistance, or even if the governor actively opposes such a step?The answer is no, probably. The reasons relate to a venerable principle in American law: that the military should stay away from actions on domestic soil. One of the founding principles of the Republic was that the federal military should not be involved in domestic law enforcement. But, over the years, the law has carved out certain narrow exceptions to that rule, notably in the form of the Insurrection Act, from 1807. This law says that “whenever there is an insurrection in any state against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or its governor,” call in the armed forces. So that seems pretty simple. The President can bring in the military only if a governor or a state requests it. In recent years, the law has been invoked only when governors have requested the assistance of federal troops, such as in 1992, when California sought help in quelling the rioting after the acquittals in the Rodney King case. (Similarly, in 1967, Governor George Romney, of Michigan, requested federal troops to control riots in Detroit.) Now, however, the governors of California, Illinois, and Michigan have all made it clear that they will not seek the involvement of federal troops in their efforts to handle disturbances in their states.
Video From The New Yorker
George Floyd’s Death Sets Off a Wave of Protests

But that’s not the end of the story. There is another provision of the Insurrection Act that arguably gives the President greater unilateral authority. This provision states that, when the President determines that there are unlawful activities which “make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States,” he may call in the armed forces. It was passed in 1956, in order to give Presidents the authority to enforce civil-rights laws. President Eisenhower invoked it to send Army troops to enforce the integration of the public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. It’s unclear whether the law, which was based on the protection of constitutional rights, would give Trump the authority he wants to overrule governors today.
In other words, there appears to be some ambiguity about the President’s authority to do what he promised to do. It may be, of course, that Trump merely wanted to threaten the use of the military without ever intending to follow through. On Monday, the President was governing by spectacle—ordering the clearing of peaceful protesters so that he could stage a photo opportunity with a Bible at a nearby church. The threat to send troops was a similarly showy gesture. Trump was trying to look tougher than the governors, but he didn’t take any actual responsibility for bringing calm to the country. If he were to send troops, the burden would be on him to show results.
In all likelihood, then, there will not be the clashes that the President’s remarks portend. He will not send troops into a state that doesn’t want them. But, in threatening to do so, Trump has shredded another norm. He has abused his power in yet another way, extending his legacy of lawlessness and authoritarianism, with more such abuses likely in the months to come.


Jeffrey Toobin has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1993 and the senior legal analyst for CNN since 2002. He is the author of, most recently, “American Heiress” and is at work on a book about Robert Mueller’s investigation.


Hardly from an arch conservative site / author.

Thanks Oeb, Interesting post that mostly makes sense. I disagree with this, as I'm sure you do: "He [Trump] has abused his power in yet another way, extending his legacy of lawlessness and authoritarianism, with more such abuses likely in the months to come." As long as he just talks about it and doesn't do it, it's not lawless or authoritarian. We can talk about hanging Sistine Chapel upside down by his testicles and torturing him, but as long as we don't do it, it's probably not illegal.

[oeb11]

Tiny - thank you - I agree with you - this article was posted about the legality of POTUS sending in troops in US states.

I disagree with that blanket statement on Trump. by Toobin.



Likely Trump knows it is not advisable to deploy US military without a govenor's request.

and as i understand it - governors are responsible for activation of National guard in their states.


As far as SC goes - I think he is a racist and a liberal provocateur. Still - I, (and I am sure U as well) stand on the first amendment protecting freedom of speech - however much I disagree with SC. It may take me a while to get that image from my mind.

Perhaps Sen Joseph McCarthy would have been a good candidate for that treatment.