Trump said the radical left should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military

bilby said:

Copernicus said:

Alcoholic Actuary said:

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

Click to expand...

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

Click to expand...

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

Click to expand...

And don't forget the absolutely insane conspiracy theories a huge percent of the population believes in. All Trump and his cronies have to do, in JD Vance's words, is create a fake story to justify just about anything, and a significant percent of the military (and population as a whole) will believe it wholeheartedly.

Domestic terrorism, starting wars, rebellion/insurrection, pedophile rings/child sacrafice, white replacement, religious persecution, Marxism, working as foreign agents, destorying the constitution. You name it, whatever lies they need. And once some of the military leadership believes in it (as they inevitably will, being part of the significant percent of the human race vulnerable to this insanity), and a significant percent of the underlings as well, you can get enough support to carry it out. And you can spin out a fake legal theory. They will then carry it out not based on a belief of defying illegal orders, but a false belief that the threat is so great that the orders are legal.

Anyone who stands in the way is part of the swamp/deep state, hates Trump, democrat judge, evil and part of the plot, etc.

To paraphrase Voltaire, if they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities.

bilby said:

Copernicus said:

Alcoholic Actuary said:

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

Click to expand...

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

Click to expand...

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

Click to expand...

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

Shadowy Man said:

bilby said:

Copernicus said:

Alcoholic Actuary said:

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

Click to expand...

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

Click to expand...

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

Click to expand...

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

Click to expand...

Yup. Maybe if they don't want to get shot they shouldn't try to invade the Capitol. Pretty simple.

Shadowy Man said:

bilby said:

Copernicus said:

Alcoholic Actuary said:

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

Click to expand...

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

Click to expand...

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

Click to expand...

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

Click to expand...

A couple of shotgun blasts into the air would have given them a moment to consider their willingness to give up their lives just for a “tour of the Capitol building”.
If they continued, then yes. And that blood would have been on Cheato’s hands. Excusing him might have been a tad more difficult for Turtle&Co, especially if his Proud Boys had returned fire.

The cost in lives, should Trump win in a couple weeks, will dwarf the numbers in that J6 crowd.

Shadowy Man said:

bilby said:

Copernicus said:

Alcoholic Actuary said:

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the military gets a vote on this. Trump might not put any Mark Milley's on his staff, but he can't replace the whole chain of command. And he doesn't have as many 'loyalists' in the military as he thinks he has, not after how he disparaged it time and again. My graduating class is now O-6 or above and most can't stand him. Even the one's who 'wouldn't mind if he was president' would never follow an order pitting them against the US citizenry.

aa

Click to expand...

I am not confident that individual soldiers will disobey orders that they suspect aren't totally legal. The military is a top-down organization. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. They may not like their leaders, but obedience is drilled into them.

Click to expand...

And there's a big difference between obeying an order to attack citizens, and obeying an order to attack domestic terrorists. An officer could easily be swayed to do the latter - even if it is only the choice of words that is different.

And that goes double if those "terrorists" are already engaged in violent struggle with the police and/or National Guard.

Click to expand...

So, should the police have fired upon the Jan 6 Capitol invaders?

Click to expand...

Yes, if, as and when those invaders entered areas clearly signed as off limits to unauthorised persons, and/or threatened the lives of police*, congresspeople, or staff.








* Genuinely threatened their lives; Not that "His phone looked a bit like a gun" horseshit.

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

Henry-Finland said:

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

Click to expand...

They are vermin, the scum of the earth, they're poisoning the nation's blood, they come from mental institutions, they are horrible people, they carry all kinds of diseases, they eat all kinds of things they shouldn't be eating, they are drug dealers and rapists, with --- I assume --- some very fine people.

Henry-Finland said:

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

Click to expand...

Well, it will probably come to this eventually. If history is any sort of guide. But announcing it in advance is not good PR. People who actually like hearing violent rhetoric, probably like Trump hinself. Mobilizing an opposition requires a much more gentle hand. Soft reassurances that the status quo will be maintained, that no loyal citizen need jeopardize their safety or investments.

Politesse said:

Henry-Finland said:

THINK! if some politicians would say:

"The radical Trumpos should be handled by the national guard and, if necessary, the military!"

Click to expand...

Well, it will probably come to this eventually. If history is any sort of guide. But announcing it in advance is not good PR. People who actually like hearing violent rhetoric, probably like Trump hinself. Mobilizing an opposition requires a much more gentle hand. Soft reassurances that the status quo will be maintained, that no loyal citizen need jeopardize their safety or investments.

Click to expand...

In my ears, a politician saying that is totally insane.
I could imagine that; that would be found in "Mein Kampf".

Shadowy Man said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Shadowy Man said:

Colonel Sanders said:

They wouldn't 25th Amendment him. They'd just let him be who he is, end voting, and that'll be that.

Click to expand...

by what mechanism would they “end voting”?

Click to expand...

Simply don't count the ballots.

Click to expand...

And how would Trump convince all the state governments to not count the ballots?

If there are only stupid answers to this question then I’m not particularly worried about this coming to pass.

Click to expand...

Governments? Just a bunch of MAGA turds on election boards.

Guys, that's not how any of this works - for the same reason we don't put the military at the border to handle immigration. What lawful order can be given to "deal" with a vast majority of the population that are quite obviously non-combatants? We don't get to shoot people just because they cross an imaginary line or breach a wall (to include those walls surrounding The Capitol).

For all his pointless bleating, Trump will never be able to sic the military on his political adversaries. He says it to intimidate and scare people who don't know any better (apparently to some effect).

aa

Alcoholic Actuary said:

For all his pointless bleating, Trump will never be able to sic the military on his political adversaries. He says it to intimidate and scare people who don't know any better (apparently to some effect).

Click to expand...

You might want to look at current SCOTUS rulings more carefully.
Tom

Alcoholic Actuary said:

Guys, that's not how any of this works - for the same reason we don't put the military at the border to handle immigration. What lawful order can be given to "deal" with a vast majority of the population that are quite obviously non-combatants? We don't get to shoot people just because they cross an imaginary line or breach a wall (to include those walls surrounding The Capitol).

For all his pointless bleating, Trump will never be able to sic the military on his political adversaries. He says it to intimidate and scare people who don't know any better (apparently to some effect).

aa

Click to expand...

Normally I would agree with you. But as the Supreme Court ruled that the president has immunity he can indeed make his orders effectively lawful. I think people are naive to think he wouldn’t do it or even that the military will refuse to do it.

In reality he doesn’t need the military. He can effectively create his own equivalent of the Brownshirts to do it. There are plenty of willing Trump enablers. He just has to tap into them. And he will.

Alcoholic Actuary said:

Guys, that's not how any of this works - for the same reason we don't put the military at the border to handle immigration. What lawful order can be given to "deal" with a vast majority of the population that are quite obviously non-combatants? We don't get to shoot people just because they cross an imaginary line or breach a wall (to include those walls surrounding The Capitol).

For all his pointless bleating, Trump will never be able to sic the military on his political adversaries. He says it to intimidate and scare people who don't know any better (apparently to some effect).

aa

Click to expand...

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law that empowers the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion.

Click to expand...

He already tried using this act during the George Floyd protests until federal officials talked him out of it. Those federal officials will be gone or fired this time around.

He has already accused election officials of de facto insurrection in the 2020 election. Why won't he use it to go after them in future elections? And once he finds a way to stop or overturn a legitimate election in the future, he can easily invoke this act to stop any resistance from the population.

I’m not arguing that he won’t try it, or even if he does he could be held accountable. I’m saying he is not a leader that could garner enough support to encourage or even enable top military officials to abandon UCMJ and ignore their primary oath of supporting and defending the constitution.

aa

Alcoholic Actuary said:

I’m not arguing that he won’t try it, or even if he does he could be held accountable. I’m saying he is not a leader that could garner enough support to encourage or even enable top military officials to abandon UCMJ and ignore their primary oath of supporting and defending the constitution.

aa

Click to expand...

With information warfare, some of them will be convinced his orders are supporting and defending the constitution due to the fake stories Trump and his crazy MAGA administration will create. It just takes a few Michael Flynns for shit to go haywire. Trump will only have Michael Flynns in key positions. No more generals like Mattis or Milley, Trump won't allow it.

Do you realize how nutty and completely unhinged from reality Michael Flynn is? You really think every general is superhuman and somehow immune from believing this unhinged shit coming from MAGA? Trump will seek them out and make sure all key decision makers are 100% diehard MAGA and axe the rest.

Alcoholic Actuary said:

Guys, that's not how any of this works - for the same reason we don't put the military at the border to handle immigration.

Click to expand...

That exact thing has happened many times in US history....

Axulus said:

With information warfare, some of them will be convinced his orders are supporting and defending the constitution

Click to expand...

I doubt it. Trump wouldn't vest that person with any power. He wants and needs, everyone around him to be chasing a carrot he is holding on a stick at all times. To even glance in another direction is disloyalty, and warrants death. A person who doesn't get the "wink wink" and respond accordingly, will be gotten rid of.

He gave examples of The Enemy Within: Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.
He said several times over the summer that Liz Cheney should be tried in a televised military tribunal.
CBS should be shut down because he doesn't like how they edit Trump stories.

Anyone who votes for this fascist should know exactly what he's calling for.

You know, if Harris wins the popular vote (therefore morally making her president), and Trump wins the Electoral College, then President Biden, as the Supreme Court has said he is a king, should make sure everyone knows that Harris has won and will be made president. He is the CiC and controls the military if there are any protests.
Of course, President Biden will never do this, never abuse his power, as he is a righteous person, unlike Trump.