How Trump could use the military to go after the 'radical left' (1 Viewer)

[Cordelier]

How does a candidate for president invoke the Insurrection Act?

I assumed the pretext of this thread was that he was re-elected.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I don't care honestly. I listened to the clip.
He said what he said. You make excuses for him as usual.
End of story.

Yes, it's obvious that you don't care that you're being lied to, or lying.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Those people were arrested in the same numbers as January 6th.

Next stupid point that's been debunked 500 times

I'm sure you think you had a point there.

 

[Noodlegawd]

There were a lot of right-wing nationalists down there too. Seems like it all got handled though, there were arrests and convictions, and a minimal loss of life. Are you saying you envision a country with this many people not having problems like this happen? That seems idealistic at best.

Am I saying what? I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yes, it's obvious that you don't care that you're being lied to, or lying.

In your view, what did Donald Trump mean?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I never heard any Democrats demanding Trump send in the NG. You have a 'quote '? They were demanding he call off his minions.

And the only post-election violence will be done by his minions after he loses.

I posted a link to an article.

He said it, you don't need to slice and dice to understand exactly what he meant.

No, you just need to listen to the question he was answering, which the article in the OP conveniently left out, and everyone making excuses for it here are terrified to acknowledge.

Just like when he uses the language of Hitler, if he doesn't quote Hitler word for word, he never said it...

Start a thread about. This thread is about ABC lying about what Trump said about dealing with election violence.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I assumed the pretext of this thread was that he was re-elected.

The question was about violence on election day. Even if he wins the election, he won't be in office until months later.

 

[Cordelier]

The question was about violence on election day. Even if he wins the election, he won't be in office until months later.

I'm more concerned about Jan. 6. Win or lose, Vice President Harris is going to be in the same seat as Mike Pence was 4 years ago.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I'm more concerned about Jan. 6. Win or lose, Vice President Harris is going to be in the same seat as Mike Pence was 4 years ago.

So am I, but that wasn't the question.

 

[Gordy327]

Redirect Notice

I figured this would happen. We are now sliding to leftists. This is basically what Mao did.

This isn't good. It won't stop with leftists. Radical is a very subjective term.

This is un-American

"There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." --- Adm. William Adama, BSG

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm sure you think you had a point there.

Yes. The point is this nonsense has been debunked.

I'm moving on.

 

[SoCal]

I posted a link to an article...

The article has no quotes of Democrats demanding Trump send in the National Guard. If you have one, post it.

...No, you just need to listen to the question he was answering, which the article in the OP conveniently left out, and everyone making excuses for it here are terrified to acknowledge...

BS, the only ones making excuses are MAWA's trying to excuse Trump's violent rhetoric and threats...

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Tangmo]

"There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." --- Adm. William Adama, BSG

Goering could have said that and he was a real person demented as he was.

Easily.

Pinochet didn't have the intellectual capacity for it however. He just did it, being the barbarian that Pinochet was.

The fundamental problem with your quote is that it's an absolutist statement. The US military has its oath to the Constitution and takes 'em both seriously. So I'd hope your quote is not directed toward the US armed forces whose oath is to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." Plus the US military will always accept civilian authority over it and that is equally loyal and faithful to their own oath to the Constitution.

 

[SoCal]

...the US armed forces whose oath is to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." Plus the US military will always accept civilian authority over it and that is equally loyal and faithful to their own oath to the Constitution.

Nice theory and maybe in a perfect world, at least before Trump, but sinse his claim that he never took an oath to defend his constitution;

Donald Trump Says He Never Swore Oath 'to Support the Constitution'​

And since general Flynn urged Trump to suspend the Constitution, we can't rely on Trump, his generals, or the MAWA's in our armed forces to take their oath seriously...

Trump's former national security advisor shared a message asking the president to suspend the Constitution, impose martial law, and hold a new election​

 

[Tangmo]

Depends on the circumstances, Tangmo. If Trump is re-elected, then regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of the man, he will still be the President of the United States. If he is then given his own "burning of the Reichstag" moment, there's no telling how far he'd take it or what the military's reaction would be. I take nothing for granted.

I didn't say it wasn't so.

Your post is presumptuous and attempts to be condescending.

You however take nothing from anything. The empty hands poster.

My post #89 to you means nothing. Yes, nothing.

 

[Tangmo]

Nice theory and maybe in a perfect world, at least before Trump, but sinse his claim that he never took an oath to defend his constitution;

Donald Trump Says He Never Swore Oath 'to Support the Constitution'​

And since general Flynn urged Trump to suspend the Constitution, we can't rely on Trump, his generals, or the MAWA's in our armed forces to take their oath seriously...

Trump's former national security advisor shared a message asking the president to suspend the Constitution, impose martial law, and hold a new election​

You are wrong.

Trump has no generals, he has no admirals and the armed forces chain of command rejects him emphatically. Flynn is a grotesque aberration. I challenge you to find another traitor like him because you can't.

Your post in this respect is uninformed, unaware and uninitiated about the armed forces and the gravity of their oath and the Constitution itself. The US armed forces are not the military of Chile or Myanmar. There are no Pinochets in the US armed forces. The US armed forces have served, fought and sacrificed for democracy since 1775. Nothing about any of this has changed for a Trump.

 

[Aristaeus]

People said all of this before Trump's first term and none of it happened. Just more fearmongering and, frankly, shouldn't even be legal,

People did not say he would use the military against the left before his first term. It wasn't a thing anyone talked about until Trump suggested it a week ago.

 

[SoCal]

You are wrong..

Says you, we just disagree.

...Flynn is a grotesque aberration. I challenge you to find another traitor like him because you can't....

It doesn't matter if Flynn is a grotesque aberration or not, he's clearly shown his loyalty is to Trump, not our Constitution and Trump says, he’ll bring back Michael Flynn if he wins in 2024. For a short time Trump gave Flynn control of his administration's national security strategy. If it can happen once, it can happen again.

Retired General Steven Anderson, says that Flynn is, "a role model for thousands and thousands and thousands of soldiers and former soldiers," and that his ideas can empower them to take actions that hurt the country"

You may not worry about where these thousands of soldiers place their loyalty, but General Anderson does and I believe his opinion is more informed than yours. Just because no other general has been as outspoken as Flynn, it's naive to believe Flynn isn't the only one like him.

Your post in this respect is uninformed, unaware and uninitiated about the armed forces and the gravity of their oath and the Constitution itself.

Your post in this respect is a pie in the sky, wishful and blindly optimistic. Unlike last time, if Trump wins he's going to install a Secretary of Defense loyal to him, not to our Constitution.

A Military Loyal to Trump
If Donald Trump wins the next election, he will attempt to turn the men and women of the United States armed forces into praetorians loyal not to the Constitution, but only to him...

The US armed forces are not the military of Chile or Myanmar. There are no Pinochets in the US armed forces. The US armed forces have served, fought and sacrificed for democracy since 1775. Nothing about any of this has changed for a Trump.

Trump is also a grotesque aberration, if he was our first president, I have no doubt he wouldn't have given up the office peacefully like Washington. Your right, nothing changed for Trump so far, but this country has never seen the likes of him before, underestimating him and his cult is just sticking your head in the sand...

 

[Tangmo]

Says you, we just disagree.

It doesn't matter if Flynn is a grotesque aberration or not, he's clearly shown his loyalty is to Trump, not our Constitution and Trump says, he’ll bring back Michael Flynn if he wins in 2024. For a short time Trump gave Flynn control of his administration's national security strategy. If it can happen once, it can happen again.

Retired General Steven Anderson, says that Flynn is, "a role model for thousands and thousands and thousands of soldiers and former soldiers," and that his ideas can empower them to take actions that hurt the country"

You may not worry about where these thousands of soldiers place their loyalty, but General Anderson does and I believe his opinion is more informed than yours. Just because no other general has been as outspoken as Flynn, it's naive to believe Flynn isn't the only one like him.


Your post in this respect is a pie in the sky, wishful and blindly optimistic. Unlike last time, if Trump wins he's going to install a Secretary of Defense loyal to him, not to our Constitution.

A Military Loyal to Trump
If Donald Trump wins the next election, he will attempt to turn the men and women of the United States armed forces into praetorians loyal not to the Constitution, but only to him...


Trump is also a grotesque aberration, if he was our first president, I have no doubt he wouldn't have given up the office peacefully like Washington. Your right, nothing changed for Trump so far, but this country has never seen the likes of him before, underestimating him and his cult is just sticking your head in the sand...

Yes, you and I disagree.

Not only do we disagree though, your post is overwrought. The post confirms your databox self description as a "woke leftist." And I don't know any "woke leftist" who knows much about things military much less about the US military. Your databox also displays the flag of the French Republic.

The retired 1-star general you cite Steven Anderson spent his expert career doing logistics, environment and climate stuff which is good. However, BG Anderson is a woke fellow traveller of yours which is how and why you guys have dovetailed. Your post quotes Anderson from 2021 when the Pentagon was initiating the measures he advocates which makes this retired 1-star a passenger rather than the driver. Neither was BG Anderson a combatant commander of troop units.

Your saying my post that contradicts yours "is a pie in the sky, wishful and blindly optimistic" is and I say again, overwrought. When I say Trump has no generals and admirals in active service it's because this is fact. And when I say the military will not accept a return of Putin's Number One Agent of 'em all to the WH it's because they won't.

You need to think outside the box of civil-military relations and interaction.

 

[year2late]

Redirect Notice

I figured this would happen. We are now sliding to leftists. This is basically what Mao did.

This isn't good. It won't stop with leftists. Radical is a very subjective term.

This is un-American

Sadly "radical left" to Trump likely means - those that do not have blind loyalty to him. Anyone that questions his decisions.

 

[exoplanet]

It's fascinating how everyone who complained about Trump NOT sending in the National Guard to quell post-election violence is now peeing their pants because he said he might send in the National Guard to quell post-election violence.

It's even more hilarious how all the hissy-fit news organizations are slicing and dicing the video clips to lie about what he actually said.

Motor vehicles are mostly safe when operated properly, but it's a different proposition with a chimpanzee at the wheel. At this point, your options with Trump are either that he is a Machiavellian liar or that the has a very loose grip on reality. Justifying military force with made up hypotheticals about your political enemies is very different from responding to actual emergencies with potentially dire outcomes. I don't trust him with either.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Hysterical nonsense all over this thread!!

 

[Ikari]

Well the thing is, if Trump does use the military to go after political opponents, MAGA commies will cheer.

 

[Tangmo]

The American military are not the PLA in Tiananmen Square 1989 mass murdering unarmed civilians demonstrating for their leaders to become accountable.

Yet it is the case that 98.9% of Americans have no clue of their military armed forces, never mind know this about them. The vast mass of Americans are endemically and casually ignorant of their armed forces who are not the armed forces of Chile or Myanmar or Egypt et al. In the vast majority of instances this ignorance is willful, pedestrian and shameless.

The American armed forces are Americans, they are not empty headed and soulless murderers of unarmed civilians, nor do the American armed forces act as any kind of Gestapo crashing into homes and businesses. When in 1953 Potus/C'nC Eisenhower rounded up and deported more than 1 million Mexican immigrants he expressly ruled out using the armed forces, ie, he rejected the request to do so by the chief of the Border Service. Neither will the military "round up" Trump's political opponents to include those in the military and retired from the military such as General Milley.

Ignorance.