380
Another instance of inciting insurrection.
Way to go Merrick Garland.
Thanks for everything.
BuT hE's BeInG tHoRoUgH.>.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This one's even better because he's calling for state governors to support a treasonous one. What saddens me is that if this does break out into full blown civil war, a lot of national guardsmen are going to be in the area of operations. Using people as human shields for his political agenda yet again.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This fucker literally encouraging states to fight the federal government… alternatively known as engaging in civil war.
Nah, he's just asking them to be "fine people" like those literal Nazis in Charlottesville, VA. Just a peaceful protest, with tiki torches and murder.
Treason with a capital T.
Given how much of a hard time as he has with pretty minor inconveniences, I think it’s safe to say he has no fucking clue what the real outcomes are that he’s trying to encourage.
I’m old enough to have family and family-of-friends who were personally around in WW2 and the occupation right after. Long story short, war’s not fun for anyone involved. If you don’t like having people say things about you in the newspapers, having people shooting at you or losing your home or not having anything to eat is going to be a real drag.
War must be a lot easier when you know that you’re not going to be on the frontline, or something idk I’m not a general
Yeah. I think part of his thinking is that the suffering will happen to other people, and he'll be safely insulated, far away. I won't say he's crazy for thinking that. That said:
- A lot of the people who are in a position to support him will be squarely in sufferingtown.
- A lot of dictators meet with bad ends. E.g. Putin supposedly obsessively worries over what happened to Gaddafi in the end (and Gaddafi was a hell of a lot more capable at this game than Trump is.)
*Imagines Trump getting Gaddafi'd
Ahh, a girl can dream.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Trump leading another insurrection, but this time against the judicial branch instead of the legislative branch???
SHOCKED fucking PIKACHU fucking FACE.
Totally not an insurrectionist. Not at all.
No no no! He means send the national guard to tour a government building, take selfies, and leave in an orderly manner. You've got the wrong idea. You must be Antifa.
He's not the commander and chief he's just the old man yelling at cloud.
He's the old man with plenty of violent followers who hang on his every word. He's not expecting any actual National Guard troops from other states to be mobilized. This is a call for the same people who invaded the Capitol to assemble in Texas and dare federal forces to try and move them.
commander and chief
Bone apple tea.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Trump just wants a distraction from the $83 million in damages announced today.
Pathetic, to abuse national guardsmen like this. Its a big disruption to their family and their employers to send them on an idiotic,grandstanding boondoggle like this.
+1 for boondoggle
Ok, so now he is literally rallying troops, we still gonna just sit around?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah... No one has gotten in any trouble by following Trump. Be obedient folks.
Do they realize President Biden can nationalize the national guard at the border and tell them to go home if he so chooses?
Any guardsmen that would actually go to TX and support TX would be unlikely to follow the stand down order. I’m kind of curious how many would just follow orders going both directions.
It's probably not as clear-cut as your making it out to be. These would be actually armed forces personnel, subject to all of the rules, regulations, chain of command, disciplinary consequences, etc. that come with that.
Yes, they could possibly make an argument that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders, but not a totally clear-cut, black-and-white one, they'd likely still be looking at arrest, courts-martial, etc. if they straight-up refuse to deploy to Texas. They're people with lives, family, regular jobs, etc. that would very likely have to get put on hold while everything gets sorted out and they may not necessarily come out on top. Depending on the exact context, it's probably going to be hard to make an argument that simply going to Texas would be an illegal order.
So if it happens, you can probably expect damn-near every guardsman from those states to go to Texas if they're ordered to.
What they're ordered to do once they're there is probably where they'd have a stronger case, but even still they'd have to carefully thread that needle if they want to avoid prison, dishonorable discharge, etc. There's a lot they could be ordered to do that would be very objectionable but not quite meet the legal bar of being an illegal order that they'd be obligated to disobey.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(15 replies)
He's doing it again...?
Well, maybe we could ask Bush to call upon all willing states to tell their national guard to take up finger painting. Or maybe Bill Clinton could ask all willing states to give trump a wedgie.
But that won’t happen, not because it’s silly, but because ex-presidents have no fucking authority to tell the states to do a damn thing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Very diplomatic and cool headed. He unites everyone with such poised insight that no one is able to see without his knowledge.
/s
load more comments
(1 replies)
AKA he calls for insurrection?
William Tecumseh Sherman, General Sherman to the courtesy phone..
Bring it. These morons in mismatched and non-fitting tactical gear totally have a chance against some dude flying a drone from under a mountain in Colorado. Herman Cain or Darwin award, I don't care which.
ETA: I goofed and somehow missed the term "national guard". Don't comment when in meetings.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
380 points (95.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2680 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS