Well these same cringing bootlickers cheering for "law and order" are clapping like trained seals for the suspension of SNAP benefits, so just give it time!
Show me where the cities where Trump has deployed the NG have fallen into anarchy and I'll agree. But they haven't, so I won't.
Hint: Crime is higher in some of cities of the Deep South, where voters trend red, but we haven't sent in the NG. It's all about pwning the libs, not quelling make-believe insurrections.
Ah yes, let's put an occupying force into New York a city that globally is known for not having law and order and being a complete mess. It's not like giant cities with millions of residents will always have crime and homelessness and issues. We should send the entire military in!
Seriously the moderation and flagging policy on this site has reached truly disgusting levels. "Just let me build the dystopia for Silicon Valley freak billionaires and collect my pathetic $180K pittance in peace!"
You make a great point and if you really think about it, it’s probably true no matter your political leanings. The federal government may be too powerful, as an institution.
It’s a pretty common tactic among authoritarians, and abusers in general, to provoke violence and then claim the resulting self defense as an unwarranted attack.
Once again, I'd like to see how supporters of the current administration, and states rights advocates generally, square this type of behavior.
I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero, especially compared to, say, the Vietnam anti-war movement, or even the BLM protests in 2020.
There is no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, and the only logical reason for this sort of action is to consolidate federal control over the military, and prepare them to suppress dissent against Trump, especially around election season.
> I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero
“The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?
I mean that there are no "riots" or other unrest that would require the government to send in the National Guard, and that claiming otherwise is a pretext.
Proven by Trump himself to be completely unjustified even if a key seat of government is being invaded by rioters, unless maybe Trump imagines that some emerging situation is much worse than the Capitol was under his own encouragement.
Even though Trump's mob was intent on murdering rival politicians, and there were casualties including death, he completely failed to do what was needed to quell the disturbance until it was far too late that time.
How theoretical is that?
>no need for a federal response to the things happening right now,
That's because it's only Wednesday.
If Trump goes through with his plan to allow food assistance to go unfunded using the excuse "the well has run dry", the 40 million who depend on it might have "some" dissent that they would like to vent directly.
No President of any party has ever dropped the ball bad enough to let that happen ever.
Certainly not with both houses of Congress dominated by supporters in the same party.
If he really wanted to keep food supplies coming in for low-income citizens, plus the farmers who greatly benefit themselves, all Trump has to do is say so and Congress can have that one item on his desk to sign the same day, no strings attached.
Now unfortunately overnight, the entire island of Jamaica is devastated by dire needs, most countries are not prosperous enough to help though. I can't imagine the USA doesn't still have the financial leadership ability to be able to ease more suffering than anyone else. It would be just heartless not to.
Well with the nutritional assistance that recipients in the USA have been desperately depending on for more than 50 years, that could be a different story.
If they let it run out for Americans Friday as threatened.
It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describes a recruitment and training drive that sounds like it should take 3-12 months to complete.
If you do believe (as your post suggests) that an armed response to crowd control might be appropriate in the event of another Vietnam or another BLM, surely the right time to start preparing for that is now?
I do think you're right to be concerned about militarisation, but "there isn't enough civil unrest to justify this right now" is hardly the right objection.
The point I was making about "enough civil unrest" is that the administration is trying to use it as an excuse to deploy the military in ways they want. It's cover for their true purposes.
I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.
I know you're being sarcastic, but I believe there's a legitimate argument in demonstrating that the administration is contributing to circumstances that would lead to this exact response.
Putting the military into a peace-time law enforcement role is asking for trouble, as we've seen in the past. There's a reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists. Allowing the administration to declare "Insurrection!" (and effectively bypass Posse Comitatus) whenever it wants is awful precedent.
I also think it's asking for trouble (between ICE, CBP and/or National Guard) especially considering how reckless these other agencies have been (I'm thinking of a recent raid where agents were rappelling from helicopters) and the administration now reassigning ICE leadership to intensify ongoing campaigns.
Very cool and normal to have military forces operating internally to scare citizens and immigrants!
Or just operating to restore law an order where local governments are failing to do so.
There is no breakdown of law and order that requires anything like this sort of federal response.
Well these same cringing bootlickers cheering for "law and order" are clapping like trained seals for the suspension of SNAP benefits, so just give it time!
[dead]
Show me where the cities where Trump has deployed the NG have fallen into anarchy and I'll agree. But they haven't, so I won't.
Hint: Crime is higher in some of cities of the Deep South, where voters trend red, but we haven't sent in the NG. It's all about pwning the libs, not quelling make-believe insurrections.
Ah yes, let's put an occupying force into New York a city that globally is known for not having law and order and being a complete mess. It's not like giant cities with millions of residents will always have crime and homelessness and issues. We should send the entire military in!
I bet you're fun at parties.
"This isn't technology related." says the HN poster as he's lined up against a wall.
Seriously the moderation and flagging policy on this site has reached truly disgusting levels. "Just let me build the dystopia for Silicon Valley freak billionaires and collect my pathetic $180K pittance in peace!"
Is it just me or is 100% of the civil unrest today triggered by the US federal government itself?
You make a great point and if you really think about it, it’s probably true no matter your political leanings. The federal government may be too powerful, as an institution.
The federal government may be too powerful, as an institution.
In a smoke-filled room somewhere, a radio crackles to life. "We've got one who can see!"
That seems to be intentional, no?
It’s a pretty common tactic among authoritarians, and abusers in general, to provoke violence and then claim the resulting self defense as an unwarranted attack.
[flagged]
Once again, I'd like to see how supporters of the current administration, and states rights advocates generally, square this type of behavior.
I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero, especially compared to, say, the Vietnam anti-war movement, or even the BLM protests in 2020.
There is no need for a federal response to the things happening right now, and the only logical reason for this sort of action is to consolidate federal control over the military, and prepare them to suppress dissent against Trump, especially around election season.
> I think we can all objectively say that the level of civil unrest that could theoretically need a National Guard response is basically zero
“The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?
I mean that there are no "riots" or other unrest that would require the government to send in the National Guard, and that claiming otherwise is a pretext.
The comment was posed as “theoretical” which I took to mean they were looking at possible future developments, not the current state of affairs.
Would you say for instance that the national guard cannot be justified in response to any riot, no matter how bad?
Proven by Trump himself to be completely unjustified even if a key seat of government is being invaded by rioters, unless maybe Trump imagines that some emerging situation is much worse than the Capitol was under his own encouragement.
Even though Trump's mob was intent on murdering rival politicians, and there were casualties including death, he completely failed to do what was needed to quell the disturbance until it was far too late that time.
How theoretical is that?
>no need for a federal response to the things happening right now,
That's because it's only Wednesday.
If Trump goes through with his plan to allow food assistance to go unfunded using the excuse "the well has run dry", the 40 million who depend on it might have "some" dissent that they would like to vent directly.
No President of any party has ever dropped the ball bad enough to let that happen ever.
Certainly not with both houses of Congress dominated by supporters in the same party.
If he really wanted to keep food supplies coming in for low-income citizens, plus the farmers who greatly benefit themselves, all Trump has to do is say so and Congress can have that one item on his desk to sign the same day, no strings attached.
Now unfortunately overnight, the entire island of Jamaica is devastated by dire needs, most countries are not prosperous enough to help though. I can't imagine the USA doesn't still have the financial leadership ability to be able to ease more suffering than anyone else. It would be just heartless not to.
Well with the nutritional assistance that recipients in the USA have been desperately depending on for more than 50 years, that could be a different story.
If they let it run out for Americans Friday as threatened.
Portland is burned to the ground friend, I heard it on Fox News the other day...
(Not a supporter of the administration but...)
It's an order to form a standing army, not an order to deploy troops anywhere in particular. The article describes a recruitment and training drive that sounds like it should take 3-12 months to complete.
If you do believe (as your post suggests) that an armed response to crowd control might be appropriate in the event of another Vietnam or another BLM, surely the right time to start preparing for that is now?
I do think you're right to be concerned about militarisation, but "there isn't enough civil unrest to justify this right now" is hardly the right objection.
The point I was making about "enough civil unrest" is that the administration is trying to use it as an excuse to deploy the military in ways they want. It's cover for their true purposes.
I don't believe they should be deployed hardly ever, if at all, and there is a good reason they are prohibited from being used as domestic law enforcement.
> another Vietnam
What if, and hear me out here, we just didn't do that?
But...but...but...we already have a standing army.
This worked out so well at Kent State. /s
I know you're being sarcastic, but I believe there's a legitimate argument in demonstrating that the administration is contributing to circumstances that would lead to this exact response.
I can envision these exact same sentiments coming from the national guard, ICE, CBP, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Guardsmen...
I think we agree?
Putting the military into a peace-time law enforcement role is asking for trouble, as we've seen in the past. There's a reason the Posse Comitatus Act exists. Allowing the administration to declare "Insurrection!" (and effectively bypass Posse Comitatus) whenever it wants is awful precedent.
Yes, I definitely agree with you!
I also think it's asking for trouble (between ICE, CBP and/or National Guard) especially considering how reckless these other agencies have been (I'm thinking of a recent raid where agents were rappelling from helicopters) and the administration now reassigning ICE leadership to intensify ongoing campaigns.