Sending in the national guard worked.

Post Reply New Topic

Context: America.

Sending in the national guard worked.
Presumably Trump's threat to send in the military helped.

Luv him,
Or hate the motherducker, while wanting to beat the shite of that orange Abomination with a pitchfork and tail, errr.
It seems that he knew what he was doing, after all.

Last edited by Pepe on 07 Jun 2020, 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The last I heard, the protests were still going on.

They are, and the reduction of violence likely has nothing to do with Trump. Threatening more police brutality to deal with protests about police brutality seems like dumping a lot of gasoline on a fire in hopes of putting it out.

The state governors are the ones who “call out the National Guard” within their states.

Trump, actually, threatened to deploy active military, and was roundly criticized for it. Even the current Defense Secretary vetoed this move.

Many in the military have a distaste for Trump.

Colin Powell, who was high up in a few Republican administrations, has endorsed Democrat Joe Biden over Trump.

Trump is on the record of *not* having a problem with protesters.
But, hey, he will say anything, regardless of the truth.
He has a problem with rioters/anarchists.

Regardless,
Things have settled down.

2 of the same posts.
One for each eye, eh?

And yet, Trumps "Gasoline" didn't inflame the, errr, flames.
You do realise your comment contradicted itself, right?

All true, but I recall Trump insisting the state governors need to “call out the National Guard”,
And threatening to do something about those states which didn't.
Perhaps they were empty threats,
But I find it hard to argue that there wasn't a need to control the rioters/anarchists.

Trump didn't provide the gasoline, it was never poured. He threatened to pour gasoline. So far it hasn't occurred and he was condemned by some former generals. How again did my statement contradict itself?

Trump said something,
Hence, outrage.

BTW,
Does anyone take seriously what is said on the American media about politics?
The whole world is laughing.

The issue here is the fact that the military shouldn’t intervene in civilian affairs. This idea is fundamental in a democracy.

When the military does intervene, there tends to be despotism.

Just rename "the military" to something like "crisis police"

Makes me think of a question: what is the fundamental difference between the military and the police? Where can this boundary get blurred?

The police are not fully trained in military tactics. Their objective is to protect the public, and be more purely “defensive” than the military. The military is charged with protecting a nation from foreign invasion, and invading another country.

In the US, there is only local and state police, not a national police force.

The FBI comes closest—but is more investigatory, and has no jurisdiction in state crimes (which comprise most of the crimes in the US).

The US has both state crimes and federal crimes. State prisons and federal prisons.

If there’s a national police, there are differences vis-a-vis a country’s military—but, yes, the differences, in practice, are more blurry in practice in these places.

Eventually, all protests end.  Even the American Civil War -- essentially a protest over States' "right" to legalize slavery -- eventually ended and the South ran out of just about everything except southerners.

I wish I lived far enough away from it that I could just find it comical. I'm living upstairs from a madman who's willing to burn the whole house down to make the people living under his control stop pointing out his flaws. Living upstairs from this means it will almost certainly harm my home too. If a hero decides to put the rabid animal down nothing of value will have been lost.

It’s really terrible that you have to deal with this sort of person.

I’ve known similar people myself.