Comments by "Khronogi" (@Khronogi) on "LegalEagle" channel.

  1. 350
  2. 240
  3. 108
  4. 84
  5. 81
  6. 70
  7. 70
  8. 62
  9. 59
  10. 59
  11. 57
  12. 51
  13. 50
  14. 49
  15. 48
  16. 48
  17. 46
  18. 45
  19. 44
  20. 43
  21. 43
  22. 41
  23. 40
  24. 37
  25. 37
  26. 35
  27. 35
  28. 32
  29. 31
  30. 31
  31. 30
  32. 30
  33. 30
  34. 30
  35. 29
  36. 28
  37. 25
  38. 25
  39. 25
  40. 24
  41. 22
  42. 21
  43. 20
  44. 20
  45. 19
  46. 19
  47. 19
  48. 19
  49. 18
  50. 17
  51. 17
  52. I've given thoughts to this as well, and it might actually be trumps plan here. What better way to bolster support than by starting a war, and if you are trying to push the fact that you are anti-war, then you need someone to start a war against you. I think the president is hoping that people escalate and attack the federal troops so he can justify himself and escalate even farther, and might fortify his position as being the person who can bring this to an end, ie protect the citizens. He will say the liberals and democrats dont care about security and will say that biden wont be able to or wont be willing to stop the violent rioters. trumps current advertising spending suggests this as well, as I think $20million was spent on his 'defund the police' ads. He's fear-mongering as an attempt to drive the insecure towards him. You can see this in his supporters in these threads. A lot of them are justifying the feds being there because 'the liberals wont do anything against the violent hordes.' We know this line to be wrong on several levels. We know that the majority of the protestors are not violent, and only a very small number of them are. Yet we still see people calling them riots. Yes, people have caused property damage, and some have broken into stores to steal stuff amongst the confusion. A smart person would coordinate /WITH/ the protestors and make arrangements for bad actors, while also supporting the protest. My city, while it didn't deal with everything perfectly, made the judgment not to make arrests the night its' stores were broken into. Why? Because they had thousands of videos of the people doing these things, and decided to pursue arrests after the case. Instead, on the night this happened, they moved people away from the affected areas and allowed them to protest through the night. The following nights the police had already established fences in the area and even talked to protestors who were there. The president is absolutely horrible at pr, even if he pretends to be great with getting attention. Not to mention he's horrible at actually leading. One thing I've noticed is that the president likes to create a problem so he can 'fix' it. He enraged north korea so he could 'calm them down'. He broke the Iran nuclear deal so he could say Iran is dangerous and making nukes. He created a trade war so he could 'fix' it.
    17
  53. 17
  54. 17
  55. 16
  56. 16
  57. 16
  58. 15
  59. 15
  60. 15
  61. 15
  62. 15
  63. 13
  64. 13
  65. 13
  66. 13
  67. 13
  68. 12
  69. 12
  70. 12
  71. 12
  72. 11
  73. 11
  74. 11
  75. 11
  76. 11
  77. 11
  78. 10
  79. 10
  80. 10
  81. 10
  82. 10
  83. 10
  84. 9
  85. 9
  86. justaperson & the Lost Farmstead You two have to realize that he is not being impeached because of who he is, he is being impeached for what he has done. If Hillary was elected president and she did the same things, I would want her impeached as well. The political ideology is not the reason the president is being impeached. You must also realize that this is not a 'team battle', it is not Republican vs Democrat, it is not Liberal vs Conservative. That style of thinking is not only incredibly disruptive to our democracy, it is also straight out of the Russian playbook. If you cannot defeat your enemy, you make them defeat themselves. Remember the pledge of allegiance, 'United we stand, divided we fall.' That is still a thing. Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and everyone else are on the same team. Please do not let anyone distract you from that fact. Anyone who does is goading you. So we can analyze the /facts/, and yes they are facts. This isn't a case of people making up sensationalist headlines in order to generate views. These facts have been corroborated by government officials and the Whitehouse itself. Fact: The President of the United States of America sought to use congressionally approved money and resources in order to make the President of Ukraine launch an investigation into his political rival. The 'transcript' released by the Whitehouse shows the conversation in which the President essentially attempts to extort Ukraine into investigating his political rival. The sheer act of him ASKING Ukraine to do such a thing is against the law. Using congressional money as leverage is just another nail in the coffin. Fact: The President has continually obstructed the investigation into these events. (This is illegal) Fact: The President has intimidated witnesses of the investigation. (This is illegal) Fact: The President has admitted that he would use foreign nations in order to gain potential dirt on political rivals. (Doing so is illegal) These are all facts, they aren't there to be argued about. These things happened, we know they happened. The President is showing us that he believes that is he above the law. The question becomes now: Are these things allowable for a President to do? Is the President above the law? What do we do if the President does something he absolutely should not be doing? So if you think about it this way, instead of believing that people want the president impeached because they disagree with his policies, you can now start to believe that people want him impeached because he has betrayed America. Also, keep in mind, this doesn't even approach all of the other misconduct the man has done throughout his life, nor the rest of his presidency. So my question to both of you (and anyone else that still supports the president) would be: Do you think the President should be above the law? And if you do: Do you realize that makes him a dictator?
    9
  87.  @kw5371  eh. I think you are failing to see our issue. If you drew a system around just dude and the people chasing him, you can probably argue self defense in that isolated circumstance. I dont think any one would reasonably disagree with that. However you cant judge the situation isolated because you dont have all the facts. We in the left have an issue with the argument being self defense because the guy knew fully well what could happen was a very real possibility. We dont think going out of your way to get into such a situation can be called self defense if you knew it would happen in advance. Open carrying a weapon on the street is legal. Its also incredibly weird and so seldom done in a city street that people see it as threatening. The sheer fact he was carrying a gun is seen as a threat to the people around him. Theres also the fact that this kid doesnt always open carry to every place he goes to. He chose to open carry to this specific place. Why? Why choose this specific place to open carry to and not everywhere you go like someone should if they are in compliance with concealed carry? He decided to bring a firearm ti this specific event. Why did he bring a firearm? He said he thought it looked cool. If it was about looking cool, then why was the firearm loaded? Because it wasnt about looking cool. He brought a LOADED firearm to the event because he knew it was going to be dangerous. The news in wisconsin was also telling people it was going to be dangerous. The curfew set in place was telling people to go home. Still he remained with his loaded firearm even though he had been warned multiple times and knew fully well the situation is going to be dangerous. If you know fully well a situation is dangerous and you put yourself into that situation, that isnt self defense when something goes wrong. That is akin to driving into a hurricane and asking your insurance to payout accidental wind damage. That wasnt an accident, you drove into a hurricane.
    9
  88. 9
  89. 9
  90. 9
  91. 8
  92. 8
  93. 8
  94. 8
  95. 8
  96. 8
  97. 7
  98. 7
  99. 7
  100. 7
  101. 7
  102. 7
  103. 7
  104. 7
  105. 7
  106. 7
  107. 6
  108. 6
  109. 6
  110. 6
  111. 6
  112. 6
  113. 6
  114. 6
  115. 6
  116. 6
  117. 6
  118. 6
  119. 6
  120. 6
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156.  Dakota Keeler  the problem with this is that congress did give them the power, its vague on purpose. I dont know if I can put this in words on a cell phone but I'll try. The reason we have these various governmental organizations is because congress cant do everything by themselves. They are both not experts in every field nor are they physically capable of handling every decision on every subject in any amount of time. So they say, "hey we aren't experts, but you know who is? People who have dedicated their entire lives to this subject, let's have them in charge." And they create a governmental agency to take care of it. They say they have power to do stuff, and it isnt explicitly mentioned because the whole point of creating the agency was because congress cant know what to explicitly mention, nor can predict the future. That built in vagueness is on purpose, because without it, Congress would have to become experts in the subject they are creating, and build the framework and structure themselves. That is not possible. Also, SCOTUS has terrible logic for their decision. "If congress doesnt explicitly mention it then they cant do it" well I can argue the exact opposite and say "congress didnt explicitly mention they couldnt, so they can". Neither of those is a good arguement. The fact is those governmental agencies have oversight that judges whether their actions are in line. If they were out of line theyd be told they were out of line. SCOTUS just wants to do the federalist societies end goal of breaking the government, which this type of ruling does.
    4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270.  @HellecticMojo  It isn't just the Republicans that would stop it in it's tracks. I don't think you realize how many people support the 2nd amendment who only vote republican because of that issue. If the democrats adjusted their firearm policy to be gun safety and education rather than overt control, the country would sweep blue. The real issue is that we aren't allowed to have talks or debates about trying to fix the issue because we have lobbyist groups like the NRA who actually don't care about the 2nd amendment, they just care about getting paid. So those groups will rile everything up and destroy any possible talk that even comes near firearms because then they can say, 'Hey your rights are at risk, better give us money to defend it.' The real issue is that the people in charge of our government are there not to govern the country and work together to solve problems as they should be, but to harvest and secure power. We can work towards solving the violence crisis in our country if the people in charge of the country actually worked together rather than bickering like children. For instance, we could entertain the IDEA of having firearm classes which would teach people how to properly use their firearms rather than just assuming proper knowledge will be passed down generationally. These classes would have the added benefit of exposing people to a network of other people. It is hell of a lot harder to get a weapon if the weapon experts think there is something majorly off about you. Plus, they'd be instilling that /proper culture/ of firearms enthusiasts who take their firearm a lot more serious than some good ol' boys. We don't even allow hospitals to take gun data, which would be extremely useful for firearm and ammo manufacturers because then they could see how effective their weapons actually were.
    2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394.  @SidestickPilot  the traitor abandoned our allies in Syria on a whim. He also negotiated with the taliban which led to the collapse that everyone blames on biden, but biden was doing the one thing america doesnt do and that's honoring treaties. The traitor permanently dropped corporate taxes, but personal taxes were only 4 years to be terminated exactly when he left office. Mindset being he wants the corporate taxes cut no matter what, but hes using the personal taxes as negotiations to the people. That's scumbaggery. He also inserted people Into his cabinet that were actively undermining their government positions. He inserted billionaires who donated to his campaign into these slots who then proceeded to try to use the time in their position to help make more money for themselves. This is called oligarchic corruption. He placed his own unqualified family members in positions of high government. This is extreme nepotism, and also very dangerous. His son in law just recieved 2 billion dollars from Saudi arabia. This is high corruption. He obstructed justice multiple times. Corruption He increased prices of his hotel he was forcing american personnel to be at to earn more money. Corruption. He also plotted to overthrow the government with a violent mob. There are plenty of other events to show the man was corruption incarnate, both before and during and after his time as president. You think that's better than Biden? Because I think you're overexaggerating. Biden has put experts of their field into cabinet positions who have been using their positions to help the people whom they serve. Not billionaires who bought in to increase corruption.
    1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1