Trump is Declaring Martial Law in DC

[and then 44,817]

56 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

What's the good part?

Maybe you could ask the question of families in these cities that are cowering in fear while they watch the services they depend on for employment and even housing, burn to the ground.  I think that stopping such mindless destruction would please them.

[micahc 1,948]

National Guard are not Federal Troops unless called into Federal Service by the President. They do have to follow the Code of Military Justice, and Congress prescribes their training, but their officers are appointed by their respective state.  Article 1 Section 8 ( describing the powers of congress) 

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 2 Powers of the President....

Section 2

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

 

Otherwise the governor commands their National Guard, then referred to as Militia.  

[zep73 6,764]

1 minute ago, and then said:

Maybe you could ask the question of families in these cities that are cowering in fear while they watch the services they depend on for employment and even housing, burn to the ground.  I think that stopping such mindless destruction would please them.

I didn't imply there was no good part, I simply asked what it was.

[and then 44,817]

47 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

attacking peaceful protestors

I've seen no evidence that anyone has "attacked" peaceful protesters.  In fact, precious little resistance has been seen against those who are obviously trying to burn down U.S. cities.  Are you calling those who are pillaging and burning,"peaceful"?

[Hankenhunter 6,850]

 

[Golden Duck 10,308]

20 minutes ago, 19_Kilo said:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Bonus-Army

Some dumb Queenslander mentioned that in post #15.  I wasn't sure if it mattered, or not, that it happened in DC.

[Manwon Lender 12,375]

34 minutes ago, and then said:

I've seen no evidence that anyone has "attacked" peaceful protesters.  In fact, precious little resistance has been seen against those who are obviously trying to burn down U.S. cities.  Are you calling those who are pillaging and burning,"peaceful"?

During the last few  hour's they did so in Washington DC. He had the Security and the Military National Guard attacked outside the White House grounds where peaceful demonstrations were going on so he could go across the Street to the Church where he go's for services. The Church Pastor has made a public  statement saying his actions were Blasphemous and not supported by the Church. So what do you think he will say about those comments, well we have to wait and see, I bet twitter is going to explode.

Correction It was the Bishop of the Church who the comments above and the Bishop was totally disgusted by the Presidents actions so it appears what he was trying to do Back fired, no surprise there.

Peace

Edited June 2 by Manwon Lender

[Manwon Lender 12,375]

1 minute ago, 19_Kilo said:

Active duty Army troops were deployed in Little Rock,  Detroit, New Orleans, in the past. Also the infamous Bonus Army. That's 4 by my count.

It doesn't even matter, it is an illegal act unless the Governors of those states requested it. The only authority the Coward in Chief has is in the District of Columbia. In this case the Governors won't support these ACTIONS so the Coward in Chief can just suck on it.

 

Peace 

[Manwon Lender 12,375]

4 minutes ago, 19_Kilo said:

Active duty Army troops were deployed in Little Rock,  Detroit, New Orleans, in the past. Also the infamous Bonus Army. That's 4 by my count.

Why were they Deployed?

Peace

[Manwon Lender 12,375]

32 minutes ago, and then said:

Maybe you could ask the question of families in these cities that are cowering in fear while they watch the services they depend on for employment and even housing, burn to the ground.  I think that stopping such mindless destruction would please them.

Maybe we could ask the President Trump the same thing, he's been hiding  in a Bunker, why? There is no chance the protestors would have ever made it to the White House, so why would is he hide?

Peace

[Manwon Lender 12,375]

1 minute ago, 19_Kilo said:

It matters that I've given four examples that prove your previous claims to be wrong. Just like your OP.

Kudos for consistency,  Herr Lender.

Why were they deployed? Answer the question!!

Peace

[TrumanB 562]

1 hour ago, micahc said:

Putin is trying to destroy America and our allies. He wants chaos in America.  He blames us for the protests against him.  He has used Russian intel to murder his opponents, and to create conflict within countries including America. He has found Trump a useful and willing idiot. Trump is a sociopath much like Putin. They both have personality disorders. Trump is just so blatantly narcissistic and so in love with money, Putin knows how to play him. Trump is so stupid he doesn't even realize how obvious he is.  Big beautiful letters from NK to cover their nuclear program. Putin dangles wealth in front of Trump.   Trump even today is putting Putin ahead of our allies. Why does he want him in the G7 so badly?  Because Trump tower Moscow is on his mind. I think Trump wants to be one of Putin's oligarchs.  I really do.

My impression is quite the opposite - that USA is trying to destroy Russia for decades.

[micahc 1,948]

1 minute ago, TrumanB said:

My impression is quite the opposite - that USA is trying to destroy Russia for decades.

Who asked you?

[the13bats 8,563]

I understand in situations like this things change minute by minute, in the speech i saw trump give he made a threat if local government doesnt take care of the problem he will, but he hasnt yet, but will if he has to.

[and then 44,817]

25 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Maybe we could ask the President Trump the same thing, he's been hiding  in a Bunker, why? There is no chance the protestors would have ever made it to the White House, so why would is he hide?

Peace

Presidents do not make the decision to "hide".  Their professional security make that call.  I also asked a simple question.  When do you think it is appropriate for the president to intervene to protect Americans in cities where looting and rioting are not being controlled by local government?

[Sir Wearer of Hats 33,386]

23 minutes ago, micahc said:

Who asked you?

 

It’s a discussion forum, dearie.

[Hankenhunter 6,850]

22 minutes ago, and then said:

Presidents do not make the decision to "hide".  Their professional security make that call.  I also asked a simple question.  When do you think it is appropriate for the president to intervene to protect Americans in cities where looting and rioting are not being controlled by local government?

Says the guy who's against big govt. 

[and then 44,817]

2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Says the guy who's against big govt. 

How is that relevant to this situation?  Government's first and most important duty is to protect the citizens it serves.  I realize that your political leanings make you believe it should take care of everyone from womb to tomb but those doing the paying tend to refuse that ideology.  A mayor or governor that refuses to stop open destruction of private and government property as well as those who threaten the lives and livelihood of innocent people are part of the problem.  Trump is about to win re-election because of the gutless partisanship these "leaders" have openly engaged in.  Anyone who says they'd be okay with government leadership that left THEM and those THEY love at the mercy of a mob are either lying or they're so choked with hate that they're insane.  Which category are you in?

[and then 44,817]

9 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Says the guy who's against big govt. 

I'm not receiving a response to this question so far so let me ask it of you, as well:

When do you think it is appropriate for the president to intervene to protect Americans in cities where looting and rioting are not being controlled by local government?

 

[and then 44,817]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Yes he can, but he can also Deploy Federal Troops from the Military Bases across the country, but only if the state Governors support his foolish actions, which 90% wont, because they don't trust him or his motives either.

Peace 

You may find this article to be interesting and instructive:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0755.htm

From the article

Under the Insurrection Act, the President may, without a governor's request, activate federal troops during emergencies, and when deployed under this act, they may perform law enforcement functions within a state. Specifically, this act authorizes the President to deploy federal troops if “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy”:

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that state and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of the state are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws (10 USC § 333).

I was unaware of this legal authority that had been granted to a president but the way it is written shows that very careful conditions to its use have been applied.  If the bolded actions do not constitute what we are witnessing in these states then nothing ever will.

I have to ask you, Manwon, at what point would you approve of Trump sending in troops to save innocent Americans in cities that are being destroyed and where their local governments are refusing to act to stop it?  

[and then 44,817]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

I didn't imply there was no good part, I simply asked what it was.

My apologies if I misunderstood.  This thread has gotten pretty intense and it shows the amount of division among Americans about what is happening in our nation right now.  Had we seen an outpouring of support for the actions of that cop then I might understand the current violence but that did not occur at all.  No one in media found a single person on interview that agreed with what that vicious, sadistic POS did to Mr Floyd.  The information coming out about him shows that he was no choirboy BUT he was a man who was at least trying to turn his life in more positive directions.  IMO, even if he had been witnessed MURDERING someone, he didn't deserve to die as he did.  This nation used to be better than that.  

What I find to be just as disgraceful is the behavior of politicians who are using this to attempt to create a situation that can be spun against Trump and are willing to watch their own cities destroyed in the effort.  When government officials begin to subscribe to a philosophy of "the end justifies the means" civilization is on its way down.

[zep73 6,764]

14 minutes ago, and then said:

My apologies if I misunderstood.  This thread has gotten pretty intense and it shows the amount of division among Americans about what is happening in our nation right now.  Had we seen an outpouring of support for the actions of that cop then I might understand the current violence but that did not occur at all.  No one in media found a single person on interview that agreed with what that vicious, sadistic POS did to Mr Floyd.  The information coming out about him shows that he was no choirboy BUT he was a man who was at least trying to turn his life in more positive directions.  IMO, even if he had been witnessed MURDERING someone, he didn't deserve to die as he did.  This nation used to be better than that.  

What I find to be just as disgraceful is the behavior of politicians who are using this to attempt to create a situation that can be spun against Trump and are willing to watch their own cities destroyed in the effort.  When government officials begin to subscribe to a philosophy of "the end justifies the means" civilization is on its way down.

I think, the horrible death of Mr. Floyd, was just the spark that ignited a latent bomb, that has been waiting to go off below the American society for long.
The controversies of Mr. Trump's behavior as POTUS might have fueled it even further. Let's face it, he has not been discrete or careful.
What we see now is the climax of something that has been building up for years. A symptom of a divided nation.

Edited June 2 by sci-nerd

[and then 44,817]

47 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

A symptom of a divided nation.

The truth of that is undeniable.  It is also true that sowing division is being used by one plotical party in its quest for power.  If this nation needs to burn down to stop those elements then so be it.  We can rebuild and start again.

[Raptor Witness 2,122]

Way ahead of this thread ...

[Sir Wearer of Hats 33,386]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I'm not receiving a response to this question so far so let me ask it of you, as well:

When do you think it is appropriate for the president to intervene to protect Americans in cities where looting and rioting are not being controlled by local government?

 

Three days. 
One to allow protests. 

One to see if protests stay protests or get hijacked by rioters.

One to see if the local response seems to work.

Day four “you were asked nicely, now here’s being told firmly”.