But what class are they? Or are you saying they are a class themselves?

That said, most small business owners I know work way to hard and end up with very little in the end. It is hard to compete with the large corporations. But in the past, if the area they lived in experienced significant growth, they often made a killing on the business property alone. Farmers don’t really have that since they live on the business property.

Kinda feels like they should be their own class really. Though I suppose there is a big difference between farmers who own their land, and the ones where the bank essentially owns it… and they just pay rent with no real hope of wver paying it off.

If the country goes bankrupt I don’t have to pay taxes anymore. Then I could pay cash for my medical, and skip the insurance premiums. With the savings I could fund 10 people’s healthcare and still have a ton leftover to pay extra state taxes to have the federal roads maintained…

Interesting. I can certainly see the distinction. Does that make them part of the middle class?

Seems like the American experience for a lot of people.

The guy is a mayor, and finds himself on the national stage. He is now a target of trumps. Staying in the public eye is self preservation. Not saying it can’t lead in the right direction.

That said, the major unions are run by poloticians as well. And laws don’t favor them on this. So they will stay out of it unless you get some new little guys who get elected to leadership by claiming they will do these things. But trump supporters are common enough in such unions that it would be challenging for that to happen. It’s more likely the unions unofficially join in after critical mass is achieved. Thier leaders don’t want to go to jail.

I’m seriously curious, why do you imply they aren’t?

You really just want someone to disagree with, I get that. But we are actually saying the same thing. The faxt. That the constitution protects these rights is exactly why when the police ask to remove this injuction it doesn’t change the overall protection given bythe constitution. It only changes the flawed state level injuction that is protecting people trying to create a riot from a peaceful protest.

It’s technically more than one law, but this link should take you to the part where they define journalist (they call it newsman which tells you how outdated it is) https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/california/#a-shield-law-statute

As for the injunction, I had it a little off. It was in fact a federal court. But it applied to DHS AND the police. The police were asking to be excluded for the reasons I have stated.

My ,ention of portland was to say that they learned of the tactic being used there, and wanted to prevent it in LA.

You read the article? Really? Why lie? The article is about a state of california court, city council, and local police department. Search on the word constitution and you will only find this.

"We expect demonstrations this weekend to be safe, respectful and consistent with the rights guaranteed to every resident under the Constitution.”

I was wrong on it being about a law, it was about an injunction. The injuction was related to the law I looked up about Californias definition of a journalist. Which is the reason for the dispute. The injunction uses the term journalist which based on the law is both unprovable on the scene, and specifies working for a news organiztion. Neither the injunction, nor the law that defined journalist made an exception for that person who claims to be a jounalist participating in or instigating violence.

What has been seen in portland is right wing streamers, claiming to be untouchable because they are “media”. All while they try to start fights with the protestors.

Did you even read?
I litterally said it should be defined by thier actions. And the law does in fact require they are working for a news agency, and doesn’t say define journalist by thier actions. Which allows anyone on the scene with a camera to claim they are a journalist, even when they aren’t, and then act anyway they want. That is why they wanted to suspend the law.

In fairness, what does it take to claim to be a journalist these days. Streaming activist can claim to be journalists. So basically, anyone with a phone camera out can claim to be a journalists. That would include the right wing “influencers” trying to instigate incidents. Seems to me they need to define journalists by actions (and perhaps require significant signage on the person). And probably need a law against pretending to be a journalist as a cover for violence. But that last law would probably be abused.

So wait, what is your take here? Like what response should their be to this leak?

And sadly military prison is probably way better then where ICE puts the people they detain. Some days I am not sure humans deserve to continue to exist.

For the orders part, I believe there is a JAG hotline to call and get a “ruling” or advice. That would in theory take the legal ramifications of the decision off the guardsman. But I don’t know how well that actually works in practice. It is unlikely to be a smooth as it sounds since the person on the phone doesn’t want to put their skin on the line either.

Sure they could, but them everyone would take thier business to the company that didn’t. Who knows, maybe that is how we got fed ex and not some other company.

Well, when they sold it, conditions were one way. Then things changed. That pretty much invalidates the deal. Same as if your contractor opens up a wall and finds asbestos. It ain’t right, but blaming UPS is really blaming the victum in this case. This is all trumps doing. People even told them this would happen.

I’m not pro company or anything, but why should ups have to pay to do that. I would say they should give them to a third party to auction off, but since they didn’t clear customs, I can’t see how they could do that either.

People. Are what he says? They just do whatever they want anyway.

Exactly, so winning the tug of war for the national guard is key. And court wins help do that.

While certainly true, we are fighting over the same military. And that military is oath bound to refuse illegal orders. So, the more judges that declare the orders illegal or declare an injunction against them, the more members of that military that will refuse orders.

Trump is known to turn on a dime against anyone who doesn’t do what he asks. Once he does that to military members refusing clearly illegal orders, more of them will refuse. So, every bit sets the stage for winning more and more of the military against the nazis.

Best case, JAG officers from a state national guard advise troops to ignore illegal orders, trump attempts to fire them, but doesn’t have the authority and he turns entire states worth of national guard completely against him. Then he orders other states guard to arrest them, and their JAG advises to ignore. So he orders the military to do it. And their JAG advises to ignore. Then he has lost the entirety of the military.

My first thought was how does one women box them in? And if it was more than 1, how was only 1 injured…

I agree, probably a traffic jam, someone entered an intersection and could not go all the way through because of traffic, so that “boxed” them in. That person was probably a conservative that wanted to show off thier gun to ICE which they considered buddies. Thier buddies shot at them.

Would kinda be a bit hilarious if it turned out that way. Even better if the women was actually an offduty ICE agent. That would also explain why the lady isn’t in custody.