Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

While some of this may be to deflect from Epstein most of it is driven by the knowledge of those in the administration that if in 14.5 months from now the United States is still functioning in the way it historically has in my lifetime that they are likely cooked.  

This is all to hold on to power at any and all costs....you know, what authoritarians do.  

Edited by Surly Bevo
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

So it's safe to assume that Trump's limousine got lost and accidentally drove past a garage sale once, and the concept completely confused and enraged him.

  • Haha 7
Posted
9 hours ago, ImNotMarkinson said:

i think it is just cro-magnon marketing.  go look at public issue polling on wanting someone that "gets things done" "cuts through red tape" "is a strong leader."  those always poll high.

It’s that, and it’s also a political W for the GOP to make blue state govs and mayors to go on TV and talk about crime rates and policing. 

Posted
On 8/19/2025 at 11:25 PM, DalTxHornFan said:

Yep.  Carjacking is part of our heritage as Americans!  Go for the 80/20!

Yeah, im not reading the next four pages or whatever have been posted since this, but there is a big difference in mobilizing the militia to put down something like the whiskey rebellion and mobilizing the national guard to fight crime that is at a 30 year low and happens to manifest itself in one particular form of crime. 

And I'm not even completely sold on the justification of mobilizing the militia for the whiskey rebellion. We fought a war to rif ourselves of the kind of control that a colonizer uses to take control of the colonists, yet a lot of those same aspects were at issue with the whiskey rebellion. 

And now we are using the militia aka national guard to fight a surge in crime that is actually a statistical low point...

It occurs to me that maybe we shouldn't have passed all those gun control laws that were designed and used to keep undesirable people from bearing arms because it sort of puts some limits on our liberty. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Yeah, im not reading the next four pages or whatever have been posted since this, but there is a big difference in mobilizing the militia to put down something like the whiskey rebellion and mobilizing the national guard to fight crime that is at a 30 year low and happens to manifest itself in one particular form of crime. 

And I'm not even completely sold on the justification of mobilizing the militia for the whiskey rebellion. We fought a war to rif ourselves of the kind of control that a colonizer uses to take control of the colonists, yet a lot of those same aspects were at issue with the whiskey rebellion. 

And now we are using the militia aka national guard to fight a surge in crime that is actually a statistical low point...

It occurs to me that maybe we shouldn't have passed all those gun control laws that were designed and used to keep undesirable people from bearing arms because it sort of puts some limits on our liberty. 

It's very literally an infringement of the 2A in that if the president can force a state's militia to act against the wishes of that state - then it is not their militia.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's very literally an infringement of the 2A in that if the president can force a state's militia to act against the wishes of that state - then it is not their militia.

The president can federalize the guard under Title 10. Eisenhower and Kennedy both did so during integration in Arkansas and Alabama, at a time when both states’ governors opposed desegregation and the use of the guard in that manner.

Title 32 is used when the president asks a state for use of the guard, and states can decline (several did when Trump asked in the 2020 DC deployment). Guard troops perform federal missions under state command and control at the request of the president. That’s how the state guards are in DC right now and how they can perform LE duties without violating the posse comitatus act. 
 

Sending non-federalized troops (Title 10) into a non-consenting state would violate the constitution, but not 2A. It would be one state invading the other. DC is special because it’s a non-state. 
 

 

Posted
25 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Title 32 is used when the president asks a state for use of the guard, and states can decline (several did when Trump asked in the 2020 DC deployment). Guard troops perform federal missions under state command and control at the request of the president. That’s how the state guards are in DC right now and how they can perform LE duties without violating the posse comitatus act. 

DC is a special case in that it has no governor and is not a state - their license plates say "taxation without representation" for goodness sake! A president can request a governor release their state NG resources to the feds, but they still technically answer to their governor first - not president.

The thing is, the person charged with enforcing the law is the person who's breaking it left right and center. When you put a clown in charge of law enforcement as the chief of the executive branch..... It's no surprise it's circuses only and vanishingly little bread even

Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

DC is a special case in that it has no governor and is not a state - their license plates say "taxation without representation" for goodness sake! A president can request a governor release their state NG resources to the feds, but they still technically answer to their governor first - not president.

The thing is, the person charged with enforcing the law is the person who's breaking it left right and center. When you put a clown in charge of law enforcement as the chief of the executive branch..... It's no surprise it's circuses only and vanishingly little bread even

I don’t disagree with any of this, but it’s just plain fact that the president can federalize national guards over the objections of state governors and not run afoul of 2A. Under Title 10 this is for insurrections, repelling invasions, or if regular law enforcement cannot enforce federal law.

Eisenhower, Johnson, and Kennedy all did this to enforce civil rights. 
 

I don’t see any case where DJT can credibly claim that Title 10 allows him to federalize state guards to do routine law enforcement. 

Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t disagree with any of this, but it’s just plain fact that the president can federalize national guards over the objections of state governors and not run afoul of 2A. Under Title 10 this is for insurrections, repelling invasions, or if regular law enforcement cannot enforce federal law.

Eisenhower, Johnson, and Kennedy all did this to enforce civil rights. 

Those were all actions backed by acts of Congress and signed into law by the president - not unilateral dictations of action from the unitary executive. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
22 hours ago, ImNotMarkinson said:

i think it is just cro-magnon marketing.  go look at public issue polling on wanting someone that "gets things done" "cuts through red tape" "is a strong leader."  those always poll high.

Who uses a machete to cut through red tape? WIth fingernails that shine like justice?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...