President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#28,632
#28,632
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump's preferred "modus operandi" is playing politics with just about anything, including the armed forces, and self-promotion. This was a ridiculous misuse of the United States Marine Corps.
Click to expand...
There is not a politician that doesn’t play politics. Did you miss the Senator being “tackled”
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and whodeycin85
#28,633
#28,633
Buddy’s Bandit said:
You did not answer my question either…..If, in your hometown, riots were going on that were threatening your town, your business, or quite possibly your home, would you welcome additional security support to stop the rioters?
Click to expand...

That’s irrelevant to the discussion. Sure I would welcome help but often help comes with consequences.
 
#28,634
#28,634
volbeast33 said:
There is not a politician that doesn’t play politics. Did you miss the Senator being “tackled”
Click to expand...
You are trying to normalize Trump's behavior with the "everybody does it," sentiment. It is nonsense. Trump's decision-making and impulsiveness are uniquely dangerous because he is the President of the United States, and he is of a mind to abuse his power, and use the armed forces as though they are his own private militia.

Trump's actions were both divisive and provocative .... just for the cause of political posturing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: General Jack
#28,635
#28,635
BowlBrother85 said:
You are trying to normalize Trump's behavior with the "everybody does it," sentiment. It is nonsense. Trump's decision-making and impulsiveness are uniquely dangerous because he is the President of the United States, and he is of a mind to abuse his power, and use the armed forces as though they are his own private militia.

Trump's actions were both divisive and provocative .... just for the cause of political posturing.
Click to expand...
1. If everybody does it, it doesn't have to be "normalized". That's the definition of "normalized".
2. As usual, you throw out strings of assumptions as facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and volbeast33
#28,636
#28,636
Orange_Crush said:
1. If everybody does it, it doesn't have to be "normalized". That's the definition of "normalized".
2. As usual, you throw out strings of assumptions as facts.
Click to expand...
1. Everybody doesn't do it. The stakes are obviously much higher when it's the President.
2. There is no assumption needed, in observing the petty politics Trump plays with Gavin Newsom. Trump makes his objectives clear on social media.
 
#28,637
#28,637
BowlBrother85 said:
1. Everybody doesn't do it. The stakes are obviously much higher when it's the President.
2. There is no assumption needed, in observing the petty politics Trump plays with Gavin Newsom. Trump makes his objectives clear on social media.
Click to expand...
You have no legal arguments, so you have to assume and assure motives. It's lazy and partisan, therefor right up your alley.

1749909921707.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#28,639
#28,639
McDad said:
Let me make sure we're on the same page. Scenario:
Cop follows you home. Asks for ID because you and your car match the description of a robbery suspect. He asks to see your info. You provide name only and want to go in your house. You refuse to answer any further questions.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
@LouderVol
 
#28,643
#28,643
Orange_Crush said:
You have no legal arguments, so you have to assume and assure motives. It's lazy and partisan, therefor right up your alley.

View attachment 748676
Click to expand...
As I have said before .... I have not said that it was illegal. You are making an argument that I have not contested. I have said that just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. The deployment of Marines for an assignment which could have been fulfilled by the National Guard was reckless and a misuse of the Marines, who are not trained to handle domestic disturbances of such a nature. There are numerous ways such a deployment could go very wrong for all involved.

This is a petty political stunt by Donald Trump, in his childish fight with Gavin Newsom. The Marines should not be used for purposes of enforcing the law on American soil, or in assisting law enforcement on American soil, except in an extreme case that warranted the invocation of the Insurrection Act. That hasn't happened.
 
#28,644
#28,644
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
These insane ultra deranged liberals are a total disgrace to their fellow americans.
Click to expand...

That's not what she's saying at all in that clip. Her point is that you goobers talk about prioritizing citizens over immigrants - which I think everyone would support - but then, when it comes to actually supporting citizens, you goobers balk and call it socialism. So the whole "citizens over migrants" mantra is a crock. You guys don't want to give help to anybody, citizen or migrant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#28,646
#28,646
BowlBrother85 said:
As I have said before .... I have not said that it was illegal. You are making an argument that I have not contested. I have said that just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. The deployment of Marines for an assignment which could have been fulfilled by the National Guard was reckless and a misuse of the Marines, who are not trained to handle domestic disturbances of such a nature. There are numerous ways such a deployment could go very wrong for all involved.

This is a petty political stunt by Donald Trump, in his childish fight with Gavin Newsom. The Marines should not be used for purposes of enforcing the law on American soil, or in assisting law enforcement on American soil, except in an extreme case that warranted the invocation of the Insurrection Act. That hasn't happened.
Click to expand...
I had seen you admit that it is not illegal. That was a part of the reason I brought it up. The rest of your post was basically too many words that could have just as well admitted, "You are correct. I have nothing else but attributing motives."

And for the record, the Marines are tasked with protecting our federal embassies around the world. I suspect they are trained and capable of protecting our federal buildings here; additionally, they are given specific additional training for any given assignment, before arriving--i.e. tailored to protecting buildings and assisting federal law enforcement on US grounds.

Here. I'll help. Maybe it'll bring a level of peace to whatever non-partisan brain cells may still be struggling for life in that mind of yours.

"What I will say is the United States Marine Corps, as you know, [are] the ones who guard our embassies worldwide, and they are certainly trained on how to defend a federal building," Sherman said. "That's the mission that we really focused on them to do, and that's what they will be doing here."
Click to expand...

Sherman stated that the 79th IBCT soldiers have completed a total of 26 missions in support of federal law enforcement since being mobilized, with an average of 800 soldiers performing missions at any given time.

"And that number has steadily increased since operations [began]," he added.
Click to expand...

Sherman said the Marines arrived at the Wilshire property yesterday and began conducting "left seat, right seat" leadership familiarization with the Guard on procedures for protecting people and property.

Military personnel have also received training on the use of force from military attorneys, with judge advocate general officers providing a "complete, comprehensive review" of the rules governing the use of force, Sherman said.

"They receive that training before they ever go on mission; it includes de-escalation techniques and the proper use of crowd control," he added.
Click to expand...

 
#28,647
#28,647
Orange_Crush said:
I had seen you admit that it is not illegal. That was a part of the reason I brought it up. The rest of your post was basically too many words that could have just as well admitted, "You are correct. I have nothing else but attributing motives."

And for the record, the Marines are tasked with protecting our federal embassies around the world. I suspect they are trained and capable of protecting our federal buildings here; additionally, they are given specific additional training for any given assignment, before arriving--i.e. tailored to protecting buildings and assisting federal law enforcement on US grounds.

Here. I'll help. Maybe it'll bring a level of peace to whatever non-partisan brain cells may still be struggling for life in that mind of yours.







Click to expand...
Not on American soil.

The primary role of the Marine Corps is to conduct military operations overseas and not to enforce laws within the United States. The Posse Comitatis Act generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. While the military can be deployed under specific circumstances, such as to quell civil unrest under the Insurrection Act, they are not intended to replace or function as civilian law enforcement agencies.

The reasons for this are simple.

1) Marines are trained for combat and national defense, not for policing, which requires different skills and a focus on community relations.

2) There is also the potential for escalation of hostilities. Deploying the military in domestic situations can escalate tensions and undermine public trust in both law enforcement and the military.

3) Finally, without proper training and understanding of local laws, the military could potentially overstep their authority or make mistakes that harm civilians.

The National Guard, on the other hand, has a dual role, serving both as a state militia and as a federal reserve force. They are often called upon for domestic emergencies and can be used for law enforcement under certain conditions. There was no reason to deploy Marines for such an assignment when the National Guard was already on site. They would have been sufficient.

I also think you are only responding to me, and avoiding @hog88 because you want this to seem like a purely partisan debate, and a conservative poster arguing against you would deter from that.

You are a simple-minded shill for Donald Trump.
 
#28,648
#28,648
BowlBrother85 said:
Not on American soil.

The primary role of the Marine Corps is to conduct military operations overseas and not to enforce laws within the United States. The Posse Comitatis Act generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes. While the military can be deployed under specific circumstances, such as to quell civil unrest under the Insurrection Act, they are not intended to replace or function as civilian law enforcement agencies.

The reasons for this are simple.

1) Marines are trained for combat and national defense, not for policing, which requires different skills and a focus on community relations.

2) There is also the potential for escalation of hostilities. Deploying the military in domestic situations can escalate tensions and undermine public trust in both law enforcement and the military.

3) Finally, without proper training and understanding of local laws, the military could potentially overstep their authority or make mistakes that harm civilians.

The National Guard, on the other hand, has a dual role, serving both as a state militia and as a federal reserve force. They are often called upon for domestic emergencies and can be used for law enforcement under certain conditions. There was no reason to deploy Marines for such an assignment when the National Guard was already on site. They would have been sufficient.

I also think you are only responding to me, and avoiding @hog88 because you want this to seem like a purely partisan debate, and a conservative poster arguing against you would deter from that.

You are a simple-minded shill for Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Give it a break with the Posse Comitatis BS. Even you've admitted it's a crippled argument. They are permitted domestic activities, thus will have been trained for those domestic activities. My quotes from defense.gov confirmed that any additional training is and has been received before setting foot on their domestic assignments.

Also, they are not to "replace" law enforcement. Are you lying or misinformed?

You have been forced to admit that there is no legal argument, and you continue to invent concerns from that purely partisan perspective that you somehow try to deny while it also keeps you prisoner.

Just go ahead and save everyone the trouble. You've admitted there is no legal argument against. Now just take that small step to admit what everyone already knows already: the rest of your argument here is political pearl-clutching.

But all of that is a clumsy diversion. Let's remember that, absent salient points, this discussion was about your need to argue assumeed and attributed motives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top