• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's promised ICE raids have begun

President Trump blatantly lies about the insurrection act:

“The Insurrection Act which has been used by 48% of the presidents, as of this moment. The elder President George HW Bush. He used it I think 28 times.”

The insurrection act has only been used by approximately 22% of the presidents and had only been used by George HW Bush one time. Before him it hadn't been used since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968

https://twitter.com/x/status/2012227104239137174
 
Random said:
I think it's a holdover from the Rupert Murdoch days at Fox News. He liked women who looked a certain way, and women who looked like that ended up on Fox News, followed by women changing their appearance to match so they could be on Fox News, followed by conservative men and women thinking it was some kind of ideal look for women to strive for. Creepy Stepford Wives vibes...
Click to expand...
I do believe you’re referring to the late Roger Ailes. News Corp (Fox) owner Rupert Murdoch is still “alive.”
 
I just ran across this little video, apnd it makes a rather uncomfortable point.


e.t.a. I posted this on another thread, but I will repeat, I just heard on the news a little snippet from Cristy Noem, asserting that the practice of ICE demanding that anyone they approach present their papers was legitimate and all just fine, in which, in what one can presume was a little slip of the whistle, she characterizes everyone so approached as "criminals." We are all criminals by default.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
I don't see this posted yet (apologies if it was):

NYT video analysis conclusively proves that Renee Good did not hit or attempt to hit ICE agent
Click to expand...
I saw that this morning and thought it was a pretty thorough analysis, although you could tell there was some bias in the way the narration worded it. It doesn't really 'conclusively prove' there was no incidental contact, but it does show that he was clearly not hit hard or knocked over, and that any incidental contact was not enough to do anything other than (maybe) a slight bruise (aka internal bleeding), It further strengthens the idea that he could not have been in fear of being run over or anything like that.
 
bruto said:
I just ran across this little video, apnd it makes a rather uncomfortable point.


e.t.a. I posted this on another thread, but I will repeat, I just heard on the news a little snippet from Cristy Noem, asserting that the practice of ICE demanding that anyone they approach present their papers was legitimate and all just fine, in which, in what one can presume was a little slip of the whistle, she characterizes everyone so approached as "criminals." We are all criminals by default.
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about the slave patrols to critique that, but it made a lot of sense, and yes, definitely raised some uncomfortable points
 
stanfr said:
I saw that this morning and thought it was a pretty thorough analysis, although you could tell there was some bias in the way the narration worded it. It doesn't really 'conclusively prove' there was no incidental contact, but it does show that he was clearly not hit hard or knocked over, and that any incidental contact was not enough to do anything other than (maybe) a slight bruise (aka internal bleeding), It further strengthens the idea that he could not have been in fear of being run over or anything like that.
Click to expand...

I think the clear gap between his body and the car is pretty conclusive. The only contact with the car is when he reached out and put his hands on it.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I don't know enough about the slave patrols to critique that, but it made a lot of sense, and yes, definitely raised some uncomfortable points
Click to expand...
On the surface, the points made sound reasonable to me...butI I'm not so sure about the analogy. The slave patrols were for the purpose of maintaining the policy of slavery. I'm not sure what the parallel would be with immigration. The Gestapo was all about scapegoating (primarily the Jews) whereas I'm not sure the slave patrols were 'scapegoating' slaves per se, rather than enforcing the codes that allowed the institution to exist. But maybe i'm missing something (?)
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin on "acts of violence" against ICE agents in Minnesota: "Pouring water on the ground so that it would freeze the ground in front of our federal law enforcement vehicles so that they would potentially slide, crash, and potentially kill them"
Click to expand...
They're wearing armour. They're wearing helmets. A little slide isn't going to kill them.
 
johnny karate said:
I think the clear gap between his body and the car is pretty conclusive. The only contact with the car is when he reached out and put his hands on it.
Click to expand...
The video says first "it is impossible to determine" and "it is very unclear" as to whether his arm being pushed into his chest is a result of the vehicle "swiping" him or him losing his footing. One could certainly argue he caused the contact with the vehicle by being there (against policy) in the first place, but it is unclear how much of an impact the car made with him. It obviously wasn't enough to knock him over or hurt him significantly, but it looks to me that there was incidental contact, and it was the contact that provoked him to shoot. None of that changes the legal conclusion (it was a pretty clear murder) but those details matter for determining intent and the specific offense he is guilty of.
 
stanfr said:
The video says first "it is impossible to determine" and "it is very unclear" as to whether his arm being pushed into his chest is a result of the vehicle "swiping" him or him losing his footing. One could certainly argue he caused the contact with the vehicle by being there (against policy) in the first place, but it is unclear how much of an impact the car made with him. It obviously wasn't enough to knock him over or hurt him significantly, but it looks to me that there was incidental contact, and it was the contact that provoked him to shoot. None of that changes the legal conclusion (it was a pretty clear murder) but those details matter for determining intent and the specific offense he is guilty of.
Click to expand...

At the 4:20 mark you can see the initial contact between him and the vehicle. It's him making the contact with an outstretched hand with his legs and torso cleared from the front the vehicle. What is "unclear" and "impossible to determine" is if there is additional contact with his upper body. But any additional contact with his upper body would have been because he initiated contact with the vehicle in the first place. Again, you can see a very visible space between where his feet are positioned and the front of the vehicle, and you can see that she is turning the vehicle away from him. He leaned into the vehicle to make contact while she was trying to avoid him.
 
johnny karate said:
At the 4:20 mark you can see the initial contact between him and the vehicle. It's him making the contact with an outstretched hand with his legs and torso cleared from the front the vehicle. What is "unclear" and "impossible to determine" is if there is additional contact with his upper body. But any additional contact with his upper body would have been because he initiated contact with the vehicle in the first place. Again, you can see a very visible space between where his feet are positioned and the front of the vehicle, and you can see that she is turning the vehicle away from him. He leaned into the vehicle to make contact while she was trying to avoid him.
Click to expand...
He shot her because he wanted to, because she was a "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bitch!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom