Der Fuhrer deploys 800 soldiers to the border to "stop the caravan".

[U.P. Cinnabar]

My concern as well, that the Minutemen, amongst others, may be camped out on the border, waiting to shoot brown people dead.

[Mr Bean]

My concern as well, that the Minutemen, amongst others, may be camped out on the border, waiting to shoot brown people dead.

1. The minutemen while a fringe group with extremists they are organized, the are basically a paramilitary neighborhood watch and while they are normally armed they have for two decades now neglected to open fire on random brown people.

2. The border is very big, previous caravans and this one arrive at major check points filled with US border patrol which for obvious reasons the minutemen don't flash their guns around nor do they tend to show up at because...

3. The Minutemen tend to stick to the less populated border areas because it lets them play soldier and because the border patrol tends to run them off less often when they do so.

Border patrol opinion tends to regard the minutemen from undisciplined but welcome help to dangerous nuisance.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am actually more concerned with the "militias" self-deploying to the border: they are 1000x more likely to decide they're "defending the fatherland" and shoot some asylum-seekers. Biggest hope is that the professionals are on hand to keep them from more harm than merely obstruction of border patrol operations.

Agreed.

That said, the fact that the best thing you can say about this deployment is "maybe the military will ignore what the President says" is pretty fucking damning.

Alternatively, the military might be more willing to "just follow orders" than some of think. People always think "It will never happen here"... until it does, usually because too many people ignored the danger signs while there was still time to stop it.

[Ralin]

Every single want of them to go higher and violating anti-corruption law will likely end said careers?

So would being fired and stripped of security clearance.

[/quote]Your telling the Pentagon is going to sir yes sir THIS President and ignore fifty plus years worth of red tape Congress has been adding on them and just do something ignoring all of that?[/quote]
What part of “He’s the president, he can fire them or have them thrown in prison” do you not appreciate here?

In order to deploy 15,000 troops to the border in a super short time span you need at least 40 separate Pentagon bureaucrats Donald Trump administration employees to ignore those same laws I mentioned in putting out contracts, putting in requests to picking the units involved.

There, I fixed it for you. Yeah those are all serious logistical issues. Doesn’t change the fact that Trump gives no fucks about the law and he could order them to load up into jeeps or SUVs and drive to the border if he really wanted to.

This after all the same week the President declared the Consitution can be charged by executive order.

So a pretty bad time to be making an enemy of him?

Maybe... again just maybe in some possible way, Donald Trump did not think about any of this and just ordered it having no idea it's not going to happen in time for Thanksigving let alone the election?

It’s possible, but it boils down to assuming Trump will get distracted and forget about it. Something that has happened many times before, but it’s bad to count on it.

[Solauren]

In order to deploy 15,000 troops to the border in a super short time span you need at least 40 separate Pentagon bureaucrats Donald Trump administration employees to ignore those same laws I mentioned in putting out contracts, putting in requests to picking the units involved.

There, I fixed it for you. Yeah those are all serious logistical issues. Doesn’t change the fact that Trump gives no fucks about the law and he could order them to load up into jeeps or SUVs and drive to the border if he really wanted to.

By Cthulhu, are you an idiot Ralin?

Most Government employees, no matter how high up in the organization, are unionized, with serious job protections in place to stop that short of shit.

Do you think because the government's ELECTED officials change, the rest of the government changes?

No. Not fucking at all.

The rest of the government goes 'Meet the old boss, same shit as before', and goes back to doing there job exactly the way they have been since Day 1, and will continue doing in each administration, barring serious legislative or technological upgrades, long past the current one running it's course.

Those bureaucrats don't want to lose there nice cushy jobs, and nice cushy pensions, because some elected idiot doesn't know what's actually legal for said buraucrats and not.

Trump would have to bypass most of the government to pull that shit. To the point of breaking any number of Federal laws. Possibly to the point the Republicans, regardless of the results during the Midterms go 'Fuck it, we don't stop him, he might come after US next'.

[Ralin]

Most Government employees, no matter how high up in the organization, are unionized, with serious job protections in place to stop that short of shit.

And those 'protections' are going to do what exactly against the guy who can have literally any of them thrown in prison or executed by drone bomber on his personal say so?

Do you think because the government's ELECTED officials change, the rest of the government changes?

I think that Trump has made it real clear that he thinks the government works for him. Which means that as long as he’s in the White House means that’s true. Because he’s the president and gives little to no shit what laws or regulations say he can do.

Those bureaucrats don't want to lose there nice cushy jobs, and nice cushy pensions, because some elected idiot doesn't know what's actually legal for said buraucrats and not.

They want to keep their cushy jobs and pensions, so they will refuse orders from the guy who can take their jobs and pensions away on a whim?

Trump would have to bypass most of the government to pull that shit. To the point of breaking any number of Federal laws.

Oh well that’s sure to stop him.

Possibly to the point the Republicans, regardless of the results during the Midterms go 'Fuck it, we don't stop him, he might come after US next'.

Won’t happen. Even if they try the military answers to him, and we all know how most police departments feel about him.

Seriously, we’re two years in and you’re thinking that ‘it’s illegal’ and ‘it’s incredibly stupid to try’ are going to stop Trump from doing something?

Yeah it might happen the way Bean thinks it will. And if it does that will be because Trump got distracted and dropped it. Not because the Pentagon bureaucracy is made up of untouchable unionists who can override Trump when he says to do something stupid.

[Mr Bean]

Every single want of them to go higher and violating anti-corruption law will likely end said careers?

So would being fired and stripped of security clearance.

1. He can't do that with many of them, you can't simply fire a general you can relieve them off command but if they are in fact not in command you can kick them out without a trial first which would be a big issue since there is an excellent chance "not obeying an illegal order" defense would win and then you have the General's publicly rebuking the President since again he can't pick the court martial judges they are random.
2. That already run into legal issues with it as Brennen is already taking his security clearance loss to the legal system

What part of “He’s the president, he can fire them or have them thrown in prison” do you not appreciate here?

The fact he in fact can't fire them, he can throw anyone in jail that's been true since the Patriot act but good luck explaining that to his supporters or his cabinet.

There, I fixed it for you. Yeah those are all serious logistical issues. Doesn’t change the fact that Trump gives no fucks about the law and he could order them to load up into jeeps or SUVs and drive to the border if he really wanted to.

He could do so, and then what? Okay you have eight hours of soldiers on the border and here comes the news media our soldiers sleeping in their trucks on the side of the road.

My point is the entire thing is a publicity stunt that will go nowhere and your point seems to be the is step one on the way to declaring martial law and shooting the protestors and I'm pretty sure I have the right of it.

Edit seeing your second post

They want to keep their cushy jobs and pensions, so they will refuse orders from the guy who can take their jobs and pensions away on a whim?

Again he can't do that, the worst he can do is relieve them of command which just dumps them back into the system to get orders someplace, he can't take the pension nor take away their jobs just their commands they simply cycle elsewhere.

I can't stress this enough Ralin the people you are talking about swore their oath to the office under Bush I, Clinton or Bush II, 15-20+ years of service means very old very experienced and very connected people, it's why getting anything done in the Pentagon is such a pain in the ass if the system does not like you.

And the system loves stability, which Trump is not.

[Tribble]

Doesn't mean Trump won't try, given his firm belief that he is above the law. The question, as always, is whether or not people go along with it. Or whether or not he gets distracted and goes off and does something else extremely stupid.

[The Romulan Republic]

In case anyone thinks fears of a massacre (either of refugees or of American dissidents) is overblown, Trump, speaking today, referenced an incident where members of the Caravan threw rocks, and said that he will instruct soldiers to treat rocks like bullets.

In other words, the explicit wishes of the President are to treat a crowd of mostly unarmed women and children as a hostile army, and to massacre them. I wonder if that also extends to rocks that might be thrown by post-election day protesters?

There is ZERO need for this deployment to "stop the Caravan" (even if you're sick enough to see desperate children as a threat), nor are 15,000 troops needed for a campaign stunt. There is only one reason for this: to have troops deployed, with instructions to shoot to kill if they meet any resistance, in key states heading up to Election Day. Even if there is no formal order to do so, soldiers who are supportive of Trump will take those words to heart, and may act upon them.

[Tribble]

TRR best me to it; here's an article from CNN. Just in case it wasn't clear that Trump is fully willing to let soldiers mow down the caravan:

Trump says he will restrict asylum, claims troops will shoot at rock throwers

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Thursday claimed he would sign an executive order "next week" aimed at restricting US asylum rules, as he seeks to use a group of Central American migrants heading for the US border as part of his midterm election closing argument.
He also suggested that the US troops he dispatched to the US-Mexico border could fire on someone in the migrant caravan if the person threw rocks or stones at them.
In a meandering speech at the White House about immigration, Trump recycled many of the talking points he touts on the campaign trail -- but offered little in the way of concrete ways to address the problems he embellished.
Trump said his administration is finalizing an executive action that would limit asylum claims to legal ports of entry, claiming migrants frequently abuse the system by fabricating their need for asylum.



But he declined to specify how a change he described as a forthcoming executive order would work, or why he was convening a presidential address for a policy shift that is still in the preliminary stages.
Asked if he envisions US troops firing on anyone in the groups of migrants, Trump told reporters at the White House: "I hope not. I hope not -- but it's the military."
"I hope there won't be that," Trump said, but added that anybody throwing rocks or stones at the military service members will be considered to be using a firearm, "because there's not much difference when you get hit in the face with a rock."

Pentagon regulations only justify deadly force in face of threat
A US defense official told CNN that the troops deployed to the border will be operating under the standard rules on the use of force and will only use such force in self-defense.
Official Department of Defense regulations say "deadly force is justified only when there is a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to a person."
Lt. Col. Jamie Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said following Trump's remarks that the Defense Department "will not discuss hypothetical situations or specific measures within our rules on the use of force, but our forces are trained professionals who always have the inherent right of self-defense."
"I would also emphasize that our forces are in support of DHS/CBP, who are performing law enforcement activities," Davis said.
Defense officials have repeatedly emphasized the troops at the border are there to support civil authorities and that they are not expected to come into any contact with migrants.
The top general overseeing US Northern Command said on Tuesday that "CBP (Customs and Border Protection) personnel are ... absolutely the primary and principal members that will be handling, specifically, the migrants."
"There could be incidental interaction between our military members and migrants or other personnel that might be in that area. And so we are making that our soldiers, our Marines are going to be fully trained in how to do that interaction," Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy said.
The general added, "They're going to understand the rules for that interaction, and they'll be consistent with CBP."
Remarks come ahead of midterms
Trump has focused increasingly on immigration heading into the final days of the midterms, as Republicans across the country struggle to match their opponents in drumming up voter enthusiasm.
Trump did not release details on the asylum proposal or how it would be implemented, saying only that he intended to sign an order sometime next week restricting asylum claims.
With three campaign rallies, a midterm election and a trip to France on the books, however, the President's schedule for next week is already crowded.
The President said he would sign an immigration-related executive order next week, but was not specific as to what it would address.
A White House aide had said earlier Thursday that Trump would unveil an executive action requiring migrants to request asylum at legal points of entry and preventing them from claiming asylum if they are caught crossing the border illegally. Although the President referenced such a policy in his speech, he offered no defense of how such a plan, once finalized, could be legal, given laws presently allowing migrants the right to claim asylum once they are on American soil.
The Trump administration has been looking at ways to limit the number of asylum seekers, with the President and his allies often describing asylum as a "loophole."
The Immigration and Nationality Act says that anyone who arrives in the US "whether or not at a designated port of arrival" may apply for asylum if he or she has a "well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion."
Earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said victims of gang and domestic violence no longer qualify for asylum.
"Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems, even all serious problems, that people face every day all over the world," he said in June.
As attorney general, Sessions has broad power over asylum procedures and the immigration courts, which are under the auspices of the Justice Department.

He has also suggested that those claims should be rejected even before asylum seekers appear before a judge and begin court proceedings and that the simple fact of crossing the border illegally could also be a factor in rejecting an asylum claim.
CNN reported earlier this week that the administration is also considering a plan to limit the number of migrants able to enter at legal ports of entry by "metering," essentially creating a waitlist to allow people to enter only if the Department of Homeland Security has the capacity to process and detain them at one of its facilities, a department official said.

In the past, the practice of metering has resulted in individuals deciding not to endure a lengthy wait to try to get into the country legally and instead to cross illegally. Should some of this group of migrants do the latter, they could face a tougher and higher standard for seeking asylum under the administration's plans.
White House aides had considered having Trump deliver an immigration speech earlier in the week, but the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre on Saturday delayed those plans.
Geneva Sands, Ryan Browne, Eli Watkins and Tal Kopan contributed to this report.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/politics ... index.html

Again, question is whether or not people will go along with it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Posted this on Facebook just now:

Get out and campaign, and above all, vote. We need to send a message to the country and the world, to show that we, not Trump's thugs, are the majority. But we must also face the terrible possibility that voting alone might now not be enough. Trump is sending 15,000 active duty troops to the border, ostensibly to stop unarmed women and children, and has said that they should "treat rocks as bullets"- ie, open fire on the caravan if attacked. The next step will likely be instructions to fire on unarmed protesters and dissidents if they are seen as "threatening" (to Trump). If US troops, acting on Trump's orders, fire on unarmed civilians, and if the legal process does not hold them accountable, then we will face a choice between dictatorship, or revolt. Do not be the instigator or initiator of violence. Do not give the Trumpers their excuse. Do not give credence to their claims that their opponents are a dangerous mob. But be ready for the possibility that the future of our country may have to be decided by means other than voting. Be vigilant, be organized, and be ready.

I am half-expecting to get a call from the FBI/police for posting this, even though I am damn sure that a lot of Republicans have said things more inflammatory with zero legal reprecussions. But while I will never countenance violence for anything but defensive necessity, I think that people need to start seriously considering this possibility. Otherwise, if it happens, I am afraid that most people will be so shocked and unable to believe it that they'll accept whatever excuses and rationalizations are offered, and we will have lost.

If you agree with the sentiments expressed above, please feel free to re-post it on any social media page with a high volume of traffic.

[The Romulan Republic]

A Neo-Nazi Trump supporter was on CNN today, arguing that lethal force was justified against people throwing rocks because David killed Goliath with a rock.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

[Galvatron]

If you agree with the sentiments expressed above, please feel free to re-post it on any social media page with a high volume of traffic.

Don't you live in Canada?

[The Romulan Republic]

If you agree with the sentiments expressed above, please feel free to re-post it on any social media page with a high volume of traffic.

Don't you live in Canada?

And? Does that make America any less my country, or it's future any less my concern? Think very carefully about how you answer that.

Little heads-up, dip shit: Implying that I am somehow less American, or less entitled to express my views on American politics, because I am a duel citizen will immediately result in the termination of any attempt at civility on my part. I regard such comments as discriminatory hate-speech on the basis of nationality, full stop.

Never mind that a hypothetical fascist United States is something that would affect Canada on a massive scale, likely up to and including any violent conflict in the US spilling freely over our border. Just ask Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon how confined to one country modern conflicts tend to be.

[Galvatron]

"Dip shit?" Jesus Christ, I wasn't trying to start a fight. I just thought you were a Canadian citizen and didn't understand your emotional investment in all of this. Now I know.

BTW, I'm on your side (and I thought you'd know that by now) so how about exercising a little restraint before lashing out next time?

[Formless]

Little heads-up, dip shit: Implying that I am somehow less American, or less entitled to express my views on American politics, because I am a duel citizen will immediately result in the termination of any attempt at civility on my part. I regard such comments as discriminatory hate-speech on the basis of nationality, full stop.

Dude, get a grip. Most people here probably don't know you have dual citizenship. Most people would not guess that you have dual citizenship. I only know from past experience. Its a rare status that only a few people have, and IIRC many countries (though not the US) require the renunciation of prior citizenship upon becoming a citizen, so that makes it even more rare. Moreover, you really ought to think very fucking hard about any accusation you make of hate speech on this board given that it is an auto-ban offense around here as you well know. Calm your tits, learn to read, check your privilege, etc. Exploding at people who don't know any better just makes you look like a humongous douche.

[The Romulan Republic]

Little heads-up, dip shit: Implying that I am somehow less American, or less entitled to express my views on American politics, because I am a duel citizen will immediately result in the termination of any attempt at civility on my part. I regard such comments as discriminatory hate-speech on the basis of nationality, full stop.

Dude, get a grip. Most people here probably don't know you have dual citizenship. Most people would not guess that you have dual citizenship. I only know from past experience. Its a rare status that only a few people have, and IIRC many countries (though not the US) require the renunciation of prior citizenship upon becoming a citizen, so that makes it even more rare. Moreover, you really ought to think very fucking hard about any accusation you make of hate speech on this board given that it is an auto-ban offense around here as you well know. Calm your tits, learn to read, check your privilege, etc. Exploding at people who don't know any better just makes you look like a humongous douche.

This issue has come up often enough before. I've also not exactly made a secret of the fact that I hold a US citizenship. And even if the argument was made in ignorance, its still a stupid argument, for the reasons I laid out, and an apparent attempt to refute my argument by attacking my nationality.

I reject that I am the problem because I take issue with people questioning my citizenship, or questioning my views on the basis of my citizenship or place of residence. Again, the issue has come up often enough before. That is all I have to say on the matter, as it is not the subject of this thread.

[Galvatron]

This issue has come up often enough before. I've also not exactly made a secret of the fact that I hold a US citizenship. And even if the argument was made in ignorance, its still a stupid argument, for the reasons I laid out, and an apparent attempt to refute my argument by attacking my nationality.

I wasn't trying to make an argument, refute your argument or attack you. I only sought clarification of your status given your public advice to prepare for an armed revolt. For the record, I actually live in southern California so I'd be in the thick of the shit if it actually goes down.

[Zaune]

I get the feeling that this is, not unreasonably, a sensitive subject. Just because someone doesn't happen to live in the United States full-time doesn't mean that they have the luxury of shrugging this sort of thing off as somebody else's problem, and even being seen to insinuate to the contrary can go over rather badly.

[Mr Bean]

Thanks to Maddow I looked at something I had failed to consider which should give Ralin and the The Romulan Republic with a reason to calm down some.

CNN
The Migrant Caravan won't make it for election day. I won't quote the entire thing but this is the relevant portion

The caravan has traveled about 20-30 miles a day, largely on foot and also hitching rides on passing vehicles when possible. If it continues at that rate, reaching Tijuana could take months, and reaching Matamoros could take weeks.

So the migrant caravan which at this point is over 700 miles away does 30 miles on a good day, lets say they suddenly go twice a fast, 60 miles a day (Keep in mind this is several thousand people walking) but hey trained soldiers in the civil war managed 50 miles a day towards the end of the war. So assuming super migrants... that's 11 and a half days or the 13th of November.

So good news for those assuming the migrants are going to be shot at by untrained militia men or shot in droves by Trump loyal sociopaths lead by Trump loyal commanders who will ignore orders to physically confront migrants. The soonest that rather improbable thing can come to pass is nearly a week after the election.

But again this is assuming super migrants. In turth their arrival time is sometime between the 20th to the 28th of November. If I were a canny caravan planner I would want to show up to the US on or about Thanksgiving day in hopes of some of that famous Christian charity. But the trail and circumstances means they likely will arrive at the end of this month, weeks after election day.

This entire little math experiment shows that Ralin, RR and myself all believed Trump's rhetoric that the migrant caravan was coming RIGHT NOW not three weeks away. Watch out for your own preconceptions as we all bought into that false sense of urgency.

And now you know the entire exercise of rushing troops to the border is not only theater it's empty theater.

[Tribble]

Oh dont worry, I'm sure Republicans will get around to cracking down on dual citizens and those who live abroad eventually.

After all, I'm sure a lot of Republicans feel that only "real" Americans will take pride in their citizenship and reject all others. The only "real" Americans are those who are born in America (and naturally only if they are white). And of course "real" Americans live in America; only traitors would choose to live in godforsaken hell holes like Canada! God bless 'Murica!

[Galvatron]

I'll be very interested to see how a Dem-controlled House Armed Services Committee will handle Trump's dick-waving at the border.

https://armedservices.house.gov/about/j ... -and-rules

That's assuming Trump doesn't get bored and forget about the whole thing after election day.

[Zaune]

"Interested" isn't quite how I would've put it, but that will certainly create a lot of lively discussion in constitutional law classes in the future.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I'll be very interested to see how a Dem-controlled House Armed Services Committee will handle Trump's dick-waving at the border.

https://armedservices.house.gov/about/j ... -and-rules

That's assuming Trump doesn't get bored and forget about the whole thing after election day.

Attempt to enforce/reinstate the paper tiger that is the War Powers Act, setting up a possible Constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.

[The Romulan Republic]

This issue has come up often enough before. I've also not exactly made a secret of the fact that I hold a US citizenship. And even if the argument was made in ignorance, its still a stupid argument, for the reasons I laid out, and an apparent attempt to refute my argument by attacking my nationality.

I wasn't trying to make an argument, refute your argument or attack you. I only sought clarification of your status given your public advice to prepare for an armed revolt. For the record, I actually live in southern California so I'd be in the thick of the shit if it actually goes down.

First, apologies for overreacting. I've had people take shots at my citizenship before, so its a sore point for me. Sorry I took that out on you.

I think we'll all be in the shit if it comes to that, but yeah, I can see how it would hit closer to home for you. If your concern is that I have less of a stake in this, however, let me assure you that I have no intention of sitting safely on the sidelines. I also have family who live in the US, some of whom live in heavily Republican areas, and some of whom are members of minority groups Trump has targeted.

To reiterate: I am absolutely not urging people to revolt now, or to initiate violence. I will always view violence as legitimate only as a last resort for defensive purposes. But I do think that people need to start seriously considering the possibility that they might have to defend themselves, or they're going to get blindsided if it happens. I think a lot of people still don't really grasp that that could happen in the US, and I'm worried that if Trump does go there, people will be so blindsided that they'll just accept whatever rationalizations or excuses are made and go on as though its business as usual. And that CANNOT happen.