5 ms·

> It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of th

by refurb 2y ago

> It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor. But Trump provided zero details about how he might use the military. Zero. He didn't say "i don't care about Posse Comitatus Act" or "I will personally deploy them as the Commander in Chief". This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!" Assuming Trump will break the law when he nothing in his comments suggested he would AND he has legal channels with which to do it (send a formal request to a govenor), is not a reasonable nor logical thought process. I don't recall the same hysteria when Obama said he was going to deploy troops to the Mexico border for law enforcement because of cartel violence. https://www.army.mil/article/18189/obama_considers_deploying_national_guard_to_u_s_mexico_border https://www.army.mil/article/18189/obama_considers_deploying... He even said he will "continue to do what's necessary to secure our shared border." Whatever is necessary?!? Doesn't he know it's illegal for the President to deploy US troops inside the US? Amazing how the media gives him a pass and is happy to explain how he'll do it all legally, but Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.

gadders 2y ago
You are failing the first law of HN, where you have to assume the worst possible form of any action when it refers to Trump. Four years of this TDS is going to be exhausting.
- harimau777 2y ago
  We have years of experience with Trump already. At this point assuming that he will be cruel, irresponsible, corrupt, and vindictive is justified.
  - gadders 2y ago
    So was Biden. And with Alzheimers and unknown people actually running the government.
    - harimau777 2y ago
      I don't see the comparison you are trying to make. Biden defined his entire political persona around centrism, bipartisanship, moderation, etc. He certainly made major mistakes (e.g. mismanaging the Afghan pullout, running for reelection); however, he didn't really display the cruelty or intolerance of different ways of life that is a core part of Trump's brand.
      - gadders 2y ago
        I mean, that might be how he defined his persona, but I don't think it's borne out by the facts. I think there was quite a lot of intolerance of anybody that didn't fit in with the left wing view of culture war issues espoused by his government. He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.
        freeone3000 2y ago
        Didn’t those “political persecutions” end up with actual criminal convictions for fraud by an independent jury?
        gadders 2y ago
        "independent jury". It was in New York. What do you think would happen if Biden or Hillary were tried by a jury in Florida or Texas?
        buttercraft 2y ago
        Did voir dire not apply?
        2y ago
- kgwxd 2y ago
  Hanlon's razor is reserved for people who don't demonstrate malice on a daily basis. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they deserve the scourge of the certainty. I'm sure you can go back through your comments, find several instance where you've said something similar, and it later turned out the concerns were completely justified. Edit: Didn't even have to go back a month: "The Project 2025 that he disavowed? Do you want trying arguing with facts rather than some evil figment of your imagination?" Of course, it was already ridiculous making that argument a month ago, and I'm sure you'll still say that's a figment of everyone's imaginations.
  - gadders 2y ago
    I think this is what people call the Mandela Effect. Below is an actual video in a presidential debate of Trump saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025, and yet you claim he never said that: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-to-do-with-project-2025-trump-says https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t... Please try and find some facts to argue with.
    - theshackleford 2y ago
      > Please try and find some facts to argue with. Why don’t you start first and show us all how it’s done?
    - kgwxd 2y ago
      I did not claim he never said it. I’m claiming that it was an obvious lie. If words are the only thing that matters when judging a persons intentions, then that must apply to every person equally or else you’re objectively biased. But you already know that.
- aredox 2y ago
  Trump is deranged.
harimau777 2y ago
That's why norms exist. Most previous presidents never would have had this problem in the first place because they would never suggest using US troops on citizens in the first place. If they needed to do something that even approached violating a norm, then they would go out of their way to affirm that they still supported the norm and to explain their actions. Obama was given more benefit of the doubt partially because he mostly followed norms. By going out of his way to flout norms, Trump has brought this sort of mistrust and criticism on himself. Therefore, it's not really reasonable for his supporters to complain about it, it's exactly what they signed up for. Remember that Republicans style themselves as the party of personal responsibility.
kgwxd 2y ago
The question: "Wait, who is threatening to use the US military against US citizens?" The answer: Numerous examples of Trump threatening to use the US military against US citizens The retort: He didn't explain exactly how he would do it, so it's not a threat. > This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!" No, it's like someone saying I'm going to steal your bike, then you tell other people they said they're going to steal your bike, then someone else defends them arguing they didn't say how they were going to steal your bike so stop saying they said they're going to steal your bike.
- refurb 2y ago
  When Obama threatened the same, he was given the benefit of the doubt?
  - kgwxd 2y ago
    Example? I was drunk for the entire administration. I don’t doubt he said some stupid shit, but I doubt he then doubled down and escalated consistently afterwards, with unquestioning support from his constituents.
kedean 2y ago
> Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything. Because he keeps breaking the law. Repeatedly. The better part of term in office this year has been spent violating the constitution, and lets not forget he's a convicted felon despite all the effort put towards making him immune from the law.

by refurb 2y ago

gadders 2y ago

You are failing the first law of HN, where you have to assume the worst possible form of any action when it refers to Trump. Four years of this TDS is going to be exhausting.

harimau777 2y ago
We have years of experience with Trump already. At this point assuming that he will be cruel, irresponsible, corrupt, and vindictive is justified.
- gadders 2y ago
  So was Biden. And with Alzheimers and unknown people actually running the government.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    I don't see the comparison you are trying to make. Biden defined his entire political persona around centrism, bipartisanship, moderation, etc. He certainly made major mistakes (e.g. mismanaging the Afghan pullout, running for reelection); however, he didn't really display the cruelty or intolerance of different ways of life that is a core part of Trump's brand.
    - gadders 2y ago
      I mean, that might be how he defined his persona, but I don't think it's borne out by the facts. I think there was quite a lot of intolerance of anybody that didn't fit in with the left wing view of culture war issues espoused by his government. He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.
      - freeone3000 2y ago
        Didn’t those “political persecutions” end up with actual criminal convictions for fraud by an independent jury?
        gadders 2y ago
        "independent jury". It was in New York. What do you think would happen if Biden or Hillary were tried by a jury in Florida or Texas?
        buttercraft 2y ago
        Did voir dire not apply?
      - 2y ago
kgwxd 2y ago
Hanlon's razor is reserved for people who don't demonstrate malice on a daily basis. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they deserve the scourge of the certainty. I'm sure you can go back through your comments, find several instance where you've said something similar, and it later turned out the concerns were completely justified. Edit: Didn't even have to go back a month: "The Project 2025 that he disavowed? Do you want trying arguing with facts rather than some evil figment of your imagination?" Of course, it was already ridiculous making that argument a month ago, and I'm sure you'll still say that's a figment of everyone's imaginations.
- gadders 2y ago
  I think this is what people call the Mandela Effect. Below is an actual video in a presidential debate of Trump saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025, and yet you claim he never said that: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-to-do-with-project-2025-trump-says https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t... Please try and find some facts to argue with.
  - theshackleford 2y ago
    > Please try and find some facts to argue with. Why don’t you start first and show us all how it’s done?
  - kgwxd 2y ago
    I did not claim he never said it. I’m claiming that it was an obvious lie. If words are the only thing that matters when judging a persons intentions, then that must apply to every person equally or else you’re objectively biased. But you already know that.
aredox 2y ago
Trump is deranged.

harimau777 2y ago

That's why norms exist. Most previous presidents never would have had this problem in the first place because they would never suggest using US troops on citizens in the first place. If they needed to do something that even approached violating a norm, then they would go out of their way to affirm that they still supported the norm and to explain their actions. Obama was given more benefit of the doubt partially because he mostly followed norms. By going out of his way to flout norms, Trump has brought this sort of mistrust and criticism on himself. Therefore, it's not really reasonable for his supporters to complain about it, it's exactly what they signed up for. Remember that Republicans style themselves as the party of personal responsibility.

kgwxd 2y ago

The question: "Wait, who is threatening to use the US military against US citizens?" The answer: Numerous examples of Trump threatening to use the US military against US citizens The retort: He didn't explain exactly how he would do it, so it's not a threat. > This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!" No, it's like someone saying I'm going to steal your bike, then you tell other people they said they're going to steal your bike, then someone else defends them arguing they didn't say how they were going to steal your bike so stop saying they said they're going to steal your bike.

refurb 2y ago
When Obama threatened the same, he was given the benefit of the doubt?
- kgwxd 2y ago
  Example? I was drunk for the entire administration. I don’t doubt he said some stupid shit, but I doubt he then doubled down and escalated consistently afterwards, with unquestioning support from his constituents.

kedean 2y ago

> Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything. Because he keeps breaking the law. Repeatedly. The better part of term in office this year has been spent violating the constitution, and lets not forget he's a convicted felon despite all the effort put towards making him immune from the law.