Trump to remove commander of D.C. National Guard mid-inauguration

[Rogue 9]

Washington Post

Head of D.C. National Guard to be removed from post in middle of inauguration

By Peter Hermann and Aaron C. Davis

January 13 at 1:55 PM

The U.S. Army general who heads the D.C. National Guard and is an integral part of overseeing the inauguration said Friday he has been ordered removed from command effective Jan. 20, 12:01 p.m., just as Donald Trump is sworn in as president.

Maj. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz’s departure will come in the midst of the presidential ceremony, classified as a national special security event — and while thousands of his troops are deployed to help protect the nation’s capital during an inauguration he has spent months helping to plan.

“The timing is extremely unusual,” Schwartz said in an interview Friday morning, confirming a memo announcing his ouster that was obtained by The Washington Post. During the inauguration, Schwartz would command not only the members of the D.C. guard but also an additional 5,000 unarmed troops sent in from across the country to help. He also would oversee military air support protecting the nation’s capital during the inauguration.

“My troops will be on the street,” said Schwartz, who turned 65 in October. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He said he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”

Schwartz, who was appointed to head the guard by President George W. Bush in 2008, maintained the position through President Obama’s two terms. He said his orders came from the Pentagon but that he doesn’t know who made the decision. It is unclear whether he is part of a larger class of federal workers who have been asked to leave their jobs as a new president takes office.

The Army and officials with Trump’s transition team did not immediately respond for comment.

D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) blasted the decision to remove Schwartz, especially on Inauguration Day.

“It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment,” Mendelson said. He added that Schwartz’s sudden departure would be a long-term loss for the District. “He’s been really very good at working with the community and my impression was that he was good for the Guard.”

Unlike in states, where the governor appoints the National Guard commander, in the District that duty falls to the president.

Schwartz said that he has not been told why he was asked to step down. “I’m a soldier,” he said, noting that he was following orders and has no regrets. “I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.”

Like other deployments, Inauguration Day will be a complicated one for the D.C. National Guard — at least on paper. Since the District is not a state, its mayor cannot call up Guard members to active duty as a state governor can.

The District must send a letter to the secretary of the Army requesting the support. The District and the Army must then go through a seven-step process to initiate the deployment, during which Guard members carry out duties at the request of the mayor and city homeland security officials.

The two entities have been able to work together to make that happen quickly in response to unfolding natural disasters, such as last year’s record January snowfall. During that storm, which dumped 22 inches of snow, the Guard was activated in anticipation of the storm’s arrival, and troops helped shuttle officials, plow drivers and supplies back-and-forth across the city.

Schwartz began his military career in 1976 by enlisting in the guard, formally called the Militia of the District of Columbia National Guard. He also oversees the Air National Guard, which combined with the Army guard has an authorized strength of 2,700. He has served in several leadership positions, including commanding the 372nd Military Police Battalion.

He graduated in 1980 from the University of the District of Columbia with a degree in electrical engineering and earned master’s degrees in business management from Central Michigan University and in national security strategy from the National Defense University at Fort McNair, Washington.

Schwartz said that he is most proud of the Youth Challenge Academy, a school for teenage dropouts run by the guard with an infusion of federal money that is separate from both D.C. public and charter schools. It is located at the former Oak Hill facility, the District’s old juvenile jail. He said that about 60 percent of the school’s student body have obtained high school diplomas, and some have gone on to college.

“These are kids with high potential,” Schwartz said. “They just need to be steered a little bit. That’s what guardsmen can do.” He said he has already told his wife that even while retired, he might stay active in the school.

“I don’t mind walking the halls and knocking on doors wearing a suit and tie,” he said.

General Schwartz's admirable professionalism aside, can anyone think of a reason why Trump would want to remove and replace the Bush-appointed commanding general of the D.C. National Guard immediately that isn't sinister?

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe pure egotism or just petty vindictiveness towards the preceding administration.

But yeah, suddenly switching out the commander of the capitol's troops as quickly as possible, on a day when their are pretty much bound to be massive protests, presumably (knowing Trump) to be replaced with one of his yes-men...

Yeah, nothing suspicious their. Absolutely not the behaviour of a despot in the making, no sir.

Edit: Really, three explanations come to mind:

1. Pure, petty, egotistical partisan vindictiveness. Fire anyone who was their before and replace them with his own guys, disruption to government security be damned.

2. My Mum's theory, which is that he's paranoid and wants to surround himself with people he trust. Which to be fair, in his place I'd be fucking scarred if I'd gone to such lengths to piss of the entire intelligence community.

3. He wants someone in that post who will do what he tells them, no matter how illegal or ill-advised... like, say, using lethal force on inauguration day protesters.

All of these seem possible with Trump.

I'd be curious to see who the replacement will be.

[Dartzap]

Ive not been paying a vast amount of attention, but Isn't he pretty much sacking anyone he can at the moment? This chap, the guys in charge of the nukes, every single ambassador?

It's certainly unusual.....

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, that's about right. The question is weather he's doing it out of simple spite/ego, paranoia, to consolidate autocratic power, or a combination of the preceding. Or some other reason, I suppose, though I'll be damned if I can think what it might be.

[Ralin]

Maybe pure egotism or just petty vindictiveness towards the preceding administration.

...

1. Pure, petty, egotistical partisan vindictiveness. Fire anyone who was their before and replace them with his own guys, disruption to government security be damned.

This is probably always going to be a good go to assumption with Trump until proven otherwise.

I notice that they don't mention who he is going to be replaced with. How unusual is that?

[Sea Skimmer]

Consolidate power by replacing a 2 star general who commands one of the smallest national guard contingents in the US? And one which by nature of its location is probably 75-110% democrats at the rank and file level? I tremble in fear over that. He's probably doing it for ego, because it's basically the only place he can actually appoint a military commander like that.

And as for the ambassadors, whatever, see http://www.snopes.com/trump-fire-all-po ... ecedented/

Meanwhile lets not forget a guy called Abe Lincoln tried to have civilian journalists executed after conviction by military courts (the supreme court stopped this, but only after the war was won as I recall), and a bunch of others arrested and imprisoned for publishing FAKE NEWS, and yet somehow the Republic survived that one. Course voter turnout was also 80% back then so it was slightly more credibly that even the most gonzo orders would actually get obeyed.

[The Romulan Republic]

The issue is more than just the replacement of a single man, obviously. As mentioned previously in this thread, its a pattern of Trump rapidly removing people from positions that would normally be left untouched by a change in administration.

And I do think it is concerning that he is rushing to replace the commander of the capitol's National Guard troops on a day when major protests are virtually inevitable, especially considering his track record of publicly supporting violence toward protesters, and the fact that he has already seen fit to try to supplement the Secret Service with hired private security.

Their is a danger in under reacting as well as overreacting. Wait until its obvious to all that someone is a tyrant to call them out, and its probably going to be too late to do anything about it, short of civil war.

And while I won't defend Lincoln's treatment of the press, I would point out that he did what he did during a civil war, a crisis that the Republic very nearly didn't survive. The circumstances weren't remotely comparable, and God willing, never will be.

Lincoln chose to violate parts of the Constitution because he believed it was necessary to save the Constitution and nation as a whole. Trump does what he does for spite, prejudice, narcissism, and self-interest. Nothing more.

Edit: Granted, Trump's offences against the Constitution and rule of law have thus far been lesser as well, unless collusion with Russia or other illegal acts to win the election can be proven (though expect that to change if he keeps certain of his campaign promises).

[Joun_Lord]

Just because the positions are normally left untouched doesn't mean its that weird when they are. Trump is a massive tool for doing this, for firing all the diplomats but its not like he's the first. I'm sure plenty of Presidents have cleaned house before its just shocking to us because there hasn't been such a house cleaning in recent memory. People are seeing untoward behavior where there is none based solely on their very unstable dislike of the stupid bastard.

Firing the dude commanding the Army protecting his spray tanned ass seems like a stupid move but probably, hopefully, not one with sinister motives. Its main bit of stupidity is the timing. If he had waited a week or two probably few beyond fear mongers would mind.

I doubt he's firing the guy to take control of DC or to prevent Rosie O'Donnel's declaration of martial law or whatever, its a appointee being unappointed.

[Sea Skimmer]

The issue is more than just the replacement of a single man, obviously. As mentioned previously in this thread, its a pattern of Trump rapidly removing people from positions that would normally be left untouched by a change in administration.

Which is entirely logical action for someone so openly hated and despised even by members of his own party, who was elected on a platform of clearing house, and the basic reality of how the US government patronage system works. Also all entirely legal and within his power. And if you have a problem with how much power he wields, fucking start by blame Obama for not renouncing any of the executive power expansions engaged in by Bush and prior presidents and indeed only doubling down on the topic. It's a really bad precedent we've had rolling for a long time now. Constant expansion of executive power, and ever more use of selective non enforcement of the law at the same time. This undermines the concept of a democratic republic. I honestly question that Trump can make it worse. Though I kind of want him to try because its the best avenue towards him getting himself impeached or into so much bullshit that he resigns.

Personally I'll actually be interested to see if Trump does not reverse this trend though. Not because of any principle, but because he seems so disinterested in actually ruling America. His very concept of repealing regulations for example is a direct reduction of his own functional power, since he can only tell executive branch agencies to do so in the first place.

And I do think it is concerning that he is rushing to replace the commander of the capitol's National Guard troops on a day when major protests are virtually inevitable, especially considering his track record of publicly supporting violence toward protesters,

The Inauguration is at 9am. Said general is being replaced at 12pm. That's not much time for SS Trumpmaster to order the crowds machine gunned. Also most of the national guard deployment is UNARMED at these events.

and the fact that he has already seen fit to try to supplement the Secret Service with hired private security.

Given the recent string of utter incompetence from the secret service that might not be a bad idea. Or you could just as well say, the Secret Service has tried to supplement Trump's long term personal employees, almost all of whom are retired police and FBI agents.

Lincoln had private security too

Yeah it is an iffy thing I agree, its also a legal non starter in many countries if he wishes them to be armed, but I do find it ironic that he's been hounded for the cost of secure the Trump Tower in NYC (which NYC refused to rezone to simplify, even on a short term basis) but him funding his own security is also a problem.

Also I mean, wouldn't you rather Trump was only protected by like twenty people with pistols instead of 250 men with guided missiles and sniper teams?

Their is a danger in under reacting as well as overreacting. Wait until its obvious to all that someone is a tyrant to call them out, and its probably going to be too late to do anything about it, short of civil war.

Sure. But Trump is acting entirely within his legal power, and if you think Trump can become a tyrant you don't have much connection to America as it stands in the year 2017, or the basic fact that he has possibly the lowest approval rating of any president elect ever. He doesn't even have majority support in his own party in congress as a person, which is distinct from congress agreeing with him on longstanding issues like repealing Obamacare. He could not seize power because no fucking basis of support exists for him to do so, and because we have a Republican system which inherently makes that a harder idea to implement then a parliamentary system. Which is one of many reasons why it was setup that way in the first place. Sure the country was founded by a bunch of slave owners, but they were fucking smart, and they'd learned a lot of lessons from a time that was far far less stable then the modern day.

And while I won't defend Lincoln's treatment of the press, I would point out that he did what he did during a civil war, a crisis that the Republic very nearly didn't survive. The circumstances weren't remotely comparable, and God willing, never will be.

Which was an okay argument to make in 1861, but Lincoln was still doing some of this in 1864, during his own reelection campaign!

Also I seem to recall the use of artillery against people rioting over a draft rich people could buy exemptions from. We've come a fucking long way, and yet honest Abe is somehow loved for imposing a starvation blockade and fire bombing attacks on civilians.

[Grumman]

Ive not been paying a vast amount of attention, but Isn't he pretty much sacking anyone he can at the moment? This chap, the guys in charge of the nukes, every single ambassador?

No.

[Simon_Jester]

Skimmer, I don't think it's particularly honest to say "someone did worse in the 1860s during a civil war" as a counter to "this seems like the kind of action someone would take if they're trying to consolidate tyrannical power." Is it true? Yes, but it doesn't really disprove the point.

Given how fucked up Trump's perceptions of his own competence and popular support are, I wouldn't actually be surprised if he doesn't grasp just how thin the ice is under his feet. I mean, people were telling him the ice was too thin to support a presidential bid at all.

I'm reminded of Hitler NOT BECAUSE I'M CALLING TRUMP A NAZI, but for a totally different reason. Which is that the conservative establishment of Germany at the time regarded Hitler as kind of an unwelcome upstart, and there were all these generals who were quietly muttering to one another about how next time Hitler would overstep himself and they'd overthrow him... but next time kept not coming. Because Hitler guessed right at a few specific moments; he gambled on being able to bluff the Allies in the runup to the war, and it worked. And so he could pull off things that his own fairweather 'supporters' didn't expect. And eventually this resulted in him developing such a massive superiority complex that he became unable to even grasp that he was trying to do the impossible.

He wouldn't listen to people telling him that the troops weren't there to win the battles, or that the situation was impossible without a tactical retreat... And eventually he over-extended himself and doomed himself. Or at least wound up accelerating the doom that would have landed on him inevitably.

And completely irrespective of his politics, I think Trumpo has exactly the kind of personality flaws required to make something like that possible for him.

...

I do think you're totally right to be pointing out that this is all a foreseeable consequence of allowing the presidency to become steadily more powerful over the last few decades, with Obama turning the dial up to eleven instead of cranking it back down. Sooner or later we were bound to get a lousy president, and if this particular one is more of a louse than expected, we still shouldn't be surprised by how badly he's using the large powers allocated to his office.

[Flagg]

He's probably been paid a hefty sum by the current guys replacement.

[The Romulan Republic]

Which is entirely logical action for someone so openly hated and despised even by members of his own party, who was elected on a platform of clearing house, and the basic reality of how the US government patronage system works. Also all entirely legal and within his power. And if you have a problem with how much power he wields, fucking start by blame Obama for not renouncing any of the executive power expansions engaged in by Bush and prior presidents and indeed only doubling down on the topic. It's a really bad precedent we've had rolling for a long time now. Constant expansion of executive power, and ever more use of selective non enforcement of the law at the same time. This undermines the concept of a democratic republic. I honestly question that Trump can make it worse. Though I kind of want him to try because its the best avenue towards him getting himself impeached or into so much bullshit that he resigns.

Legal, maybe, but that doesn't mean it isn't concerning. Lots of horrible things are legal.

And is your argument here really "If Trump acts like a despot in the making, blame Obama for making it easier for him to act like a despot in the making"?

I mean, their's a lot of blame to go around, but ultimately Trump is responsible for Trump's consistently horrific choices.

Personally I'll actually be interested to see if Trump does not reverse this trend though. Not because of any principle, but because he seems so disinterested in actually ruling America. His very concept of repealing regulations for example is a direct reduction of his own functional power, since he can only tell executive branch agencies to do so in the first place.

I do not know where in God's name this sense of optimism, if it can be called that, about Trump comes, but its dangerous.

If it walks like a despot, and quacks like a despot, maybe you should consider the possibility that it might actually be, or at least become, a despot.

The Inauguration is at 9am. Said general is being replaced at 12pm. That's not much time for SS Trumpmaster to order the crowds machine gunned. Also most of the national guard deployment is UNARMED at these events.

That is somewhat reassuring, but I would expect anti-Trump protests to be ongoing in Washington DC for a long time, and their are other reasons why this is a very bad choice.

Given the recent string of utter incompetence from the secret service that might not be a bad idea. Or you could just as well say, the Secret Service has tried to supplement Trump's long term personal employees, almost all of whom are retired police and FBI agents.

I'd rather have the Secret Service, who's loyalty is ostensibly to the country and to their duty, rather than thugs who's loyalty is to whoever writes them a check.

Lincoln had private security too

Because the modern Secret Service did not exist, maybe?

Yeah it is an iffy thing I agree, its also a legal non starter in many countries if he wishes them to be armed, but I do find it ironic that he's been hounded for the cost of secure the Trump Tower in NYC (which NYC refused to rezone to simplify, even on a short term basis) but him funding his own security is also a problem.

Also I mean, wouldn't you rather Trump was only protected by like twenty people with pistols instead of 250 men with guided missiles and sniper teams?

He shouldn't be trying to split his time between the White House and Trump Tower so he can fleece the Secret Service to rent rooms their. And like I said, its not him having security that bothers me (and I do hope you are not suggesting that I want to make it easier to assassinate Trump). Its what interests that security might be serving.

Sure. But Trump is acting entirely within his legal power, and if you think Trump can become a tyrant you don't have much connection to America as it stands in the year 2017, or the basic fact that he has possibly the lowest approval rating of any president elect ever. He doesn't even have majority support in his own party in congress as a person, which is distinct from congress agreeing with him on longstanding issues like repealing Obamacare. He could not seize power because no fucking basis of support exists for him to do so, and because we have a Republican system which inherently makes that a harder idea to implement then a parliamentary system. Which is one of many reasons why it was setup that way in the first place. Sure the country was founded by a bunch of slave owners, but they were fucking smart, and they'd learned a lot of lessons from a time that was far far less stable then the modern day.

Oh, we're a long way from total despotism yet, certainly. But we are taking decided steps in the wrong direction, and have been for a while, and we ought to be pushing back against that while we can.

Which was an okay argument to make in 1861, but Lincoln was still doing some of this in 1864, during his own reelection campaign!

Also I seem to recall the use of artillery against people rioting over a draft rich people could buy exemptions from. We've come a fucking long way, and yet honest Abe is somehow loved for imposing a starvation blockade and fire bombing attacks on civilians.

If you are referring to the New York Draft Riots, that was basically a mob of people going around burning buildings and lynching any black people they could get their hands on for three days or so. My sympathy for them is nil, and your apparent sympathy for them (while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were basically the world's biggest lynch mob as you paint them as victims) is disgusting.

[Elfdart]

Maybe he's hoping the new commander will crack heads after agents provocateur incite a riot:



Bashing Dirty Fucking Hippies is always good for sagging poll numbers, after all.

[Sea Skimmer]

Legal, maybe, but that doesn't mean it isn't concerning. Lots of horrible things are legal.

And is your argument here really "If Trump acts like a despot in the making, blame Obama for making it easier for him to act like a despot in the making"?

No because I don't believe Trump is such a thing, because we have fucking live steaming video of what despotism is these days if all the past history wasn't enough. My point is that reality matters. If you do not acknowledge this your just going to play into his damn hands. Denial of reality by Clinton is why he fucking won in the first place. My biggest fear right now is that people exactly like you, and many other liberals s I have spoken with or overheard, are going to end up so deluded as to what is in fact happening, what is and is not legal, what is and is not tyrannical rule are going to spin out so much bullshit that you discredit the opposition by leaping to hysteria as fast as you fucking can and end up pushing us towards some horrible fucking candidate, again. And that's about the only damn way Trump gets reelected. So yeah, I am afraid of that, and what eight years of him might mean. And that's why I want people like you to stop being constantly on the edge of a fit, to realize that it's the long game that counts, and fucking call a spade a spade. And the fact that someone could hammer a spade into a sword doesn't fucking matter unless they actually go and do it. And if they do then you have to have an awful low fucking hateful opinion of this country to think we would in fact just let that happen.

You will find the number one trademark of countries that fall into tyranny is weak institutions, usually followed by some kind of massive economic problem. Well the US doesn't have weak institutions, it has the strongest and most complex ones that have EVER EXISTED. It does have massive economic problems, but the fact is TRUMP was the one willing to talk about them, and even absurdly, do something about them good or bad, not Clinton. She dropped the damn ball on that, and that's why she fucking lost. So get a damn grip.

I mean, their's a lot of blame to go around, but ultimately Trump is responsible for Trump's consistently horrific choices.

And the nation and everyone before him, since Trump does not have a long political history, is responsible for Trump being in office. All presidents are hostage to the situation they inherit, which means yes, blaming the guy before you, which they all do, is in fact not only valid but to think otherwise is insane. Learn to deal with it because false hysterics only empower people like him, because every time you cry wolf you undermine the impact of protest and complain when it counts, and when you can prove it, and when a path actually exists to effectively oppose it in a legal manner.

I do not know where in God's name this sense of optimism, if it can be called that, about Trump comes, but its dangerous.

If it walks like a despot, and quacks like a despot, maybe you should consider the possibility that it might actually be, or at least become, a despot.

Tell me, how many despots do you know who campaigned on the basis of fewer gun laws, less government regulation, and more economic freedom? I've already helped two different liberal families buy guns since Trump won. Didn't think that would ever happen, but its a fucking fact on the ground now.

That is somewhat reassuring, but I would expect anti-Trump protests to be ongoing in Washington DC for a long time, and their are other reasons why this is a very bad choice.

Again I will point out, the DC national guard is made up of RESIDENTS OF DC. Which we all bloody know are overwhelmingly democratic voters. If you think they are going to impose the tyranny of Trump on the population then you should really be concerned about something way grander then the presidency.

He shouldn't be trying to split his time between the White House and Trump Tower so he can fleece the Secret Service to rent rooms their. And like I said, its not him having security that bothers me (and I do hope you are not suggesting that I want to make it easier to assassinate Trump). Its what interests that security might be serving.

Interests like letting a bunch of hookers have access to classified information and automatic weapons? Cause that's what the damn SS managed among other failures, and somehow nobody went to jail for that either. Trump wants to trust his own people because nobody trusts him, entirely rational, personally I'm just going to welcome the chance for a real scandal we can impose real consequences against him for.

Oh, we're a long way from total despotism yet, certainly. But we are taking decided steps in the wrong direction, and have been for a while, and we ought to be pushing back against that while we can.

Like I said above, crying wolf is not useful. Wait for the idiot to actually do something illegal, I doubt it will take long. You might recall at the chants of how Bush was Hitler did not prove effective at counteracting his policies, and its a basic trait of humans brains that people tune shit out the most its repeated.

If you are referring to the New York Draft Riots, that was basically a mob of people going around burning buildings and lynching any black people they could get their hands on for three days or so. My sympathy for them is nil, and your apparent sympathy for them (while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were basically the world's biggest lynch mob as you paint them as victims) is disgusting.

No what is disgustingly stupid is that someone like you, complaining that the US is heading for tyranny at the hands of a billionair and worried about the NATIONAL GUARD imposing it on protesters, sees no problem with the idea that citizens could be forced to fight other citizens while the rich were allowed to fucking buy their way out of doing so while the president suppresses the media with the damn army. That's such a fucked up contradiction I can only assume you just haven't fucking thought about it in a rational manner.

The crowd was an irrational mob, but only because it was forced to be one, because if it did not resist it would be forced to kill anyway, and when you back humans into a corner that is what they fucking do, lash out at the nearest target. On an economic basis, that is more or less what happened in the last election too.

The next time the US had a draft BTW, it had no rich people exemption. I wonder why?

[Simon_Jester]

Me, I'm not worried about Trump being able to stage a coup and make himself a dictator, especially not with the DC National Guard, most of whom probably have a lower opinion of him personally than TRR does.

I'm a bit worried about Trump thinking he can make himself a dictator. He'd have to be a deluded fuckwit with a psychopathic sense of his own popularity and talent to do so... But then, he is a deluded fuckwit with a psychopathic sense of his own talent.

It takes a special kind of Dunning-Kruger-ism to bankrupt a casino.

[Sea Skimmer]

So why did four other casinos close in Atlantic City in the past couple years? In fact wikipedia says nine casinos have failed in that city, including one which went bankrupt, Trump bought, reopened and then went bust again. Plus 12 others that got announced and then cancelled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_New_Jersey

Only 8 casinos are presently operating, so in fact the majority odds are on failure in that location. Which if you have ever visited that shithole city, I think you'd see why. You really have to want to gamble to go, they've got nothing else, heck for 20 years they didn't even have a beach worth a damn because of longshore drift.

Also I count 26 casinos that have closed in Vegas for varying reasons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Strip

The real question is how the hell more then a couple of the AC casinos them have even remained open since PA legalized gambling and Vegas began diversifying into a much broader based entertainment mecca, AC is purely gambling and stripclub based. Its no question that many are tetering, the day to day operating costs of these buildings are huge.

If Trump was that bad he'd be 100% bankrupt, not have what is it, 4 out of 2,500 holding companies that have gone bankrupt? That's why he has so many companies, so its actually very hard for him to get completely screwed, something he learned early on when he almost did go totally bust.

For a comparison the Caesars Entertainment company which owns casinos all over the US is presently in bankruptcy court with 18 billion dollars in debt.

[Flagg]

Trump himself isn't scary, he's just a rich racist rapist misogynist pedophile fuckstick born with a golden spoon up his ass. What concerns me are the people he's surrounding himself with, his general ignorance about everything, and his being a rubber stamp for one of the worst congresses in the history of the nation. The only other thing that comes close are the stupid cunts (and you are stupid cunts) who voted for him (or anyone else but Hillary because "they're the same").

John McCains 2008 campaign head said last year that "Fascism didn't come to power because it was strong, but because democracy was weak." I think it's the most profound thing he's ever said.

[Ralin]

Consolidate power by replacing a 2 star general who commands one of the smallest national guard contingents in the US?

In the city that's most likely about to have the biggest protests Trump personally will have to see, but yes, point taken.

He's probably doing it for ego, because it's basically the only place he can actually appoint a military commander like that.

That makes sense. I feel better now.

He's probably been paid a hefty sum by the current guys replacement.

You really think generals have enough money to pay a bribe Trump would care about?

[Flagg]

Consolidate power by replacing a 2 star general who commands one of the smallest national guard contingents in the US?

In the city that's most likely about to have the biggest protests Trump personally will have to see, but yes, point taken.

He's probably doing it for ego, because it's basically the only place he can actually appoint a military commander like that.

That makes sense. I feel better now.

He's probably been paid a hefty sum by the current guys replacement.

You really think generals have enough money to pay a bribe Trump would care about?

True, he could just be a fellow traveling maggot-brain.

[The Romulan Republic]

Me, I'm not worried about Trump being able to stage a coup and make himself a dictator, especially not with the DC National Guard, most of whom probably have a lower opinion of him personally than TRR does.

I'm a bit worried about Trump thinking he can make himself a dictator. He'd have to be a deluded fuckwit with a psychopathic sense of his own popularity and talent to do so... But then, he is a deluded fuckwit with a psychopathic sense of his own talent.

It takes a special kind of Dunning-Kruger-ism to bankrupt a casino.

This.

Also, I'm not worried about a coup. One doesn't need to launch a coup when one is President, and your party has a strong Congressional majority and is too craven to break ranks with you in any major way.

I'm worried about him wanting someone in command who will be cool with excessive force against protesters. I thought I was pretty clear on that point.

[The Romulan Republic]

No because I don't believe Trump is such a thing, because we have fucking live steaming video of what despotism is these days if all the past history wasn't enough. My point is that reality matters. If you do not acknowledge this your just going to play into his damn hands. Denial of reality by Clinton is why he fucking won in the first place. My biggest fear right now is that people exactly like you, and many other liberals s I have spoken with or overheard, are going to end up so deluded as to what is in fact happening, what is and is not legal, what is and is not tyrannical rule are going to spin out so much bullshit that you discredit the opposition by leaping to hysteria as fast as you fucking can and end up pushing us towards some horrible fucking candidate, again. And that's about the only damn way Trump gets reelected. So yeah, I am afraid of that, and what eight years of him might mean. And that's why I want people like you to stop being constantly on the edge of a fit, to realize that it's the long game that counts, and fucking call a spade a spade. And the fact that someone could hammer a spade into a sword doesn't fucking matter unless they actually go and do it. And if they do then you have to have an awful low fucking hateful opinion of this country to think we would in fact just let that happen.

I have a low opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people with power in this country.

You will find the number one trademark of countries that fall into tyranny is weak institutions, usually followed by some kind of massive economic problem. Well the US doesn't have weak institutions, it has the strongest and most complex ones that have EVER EXISTED. It does have massive economic problems, but the fact is TRUMP was the one willing to talk about them, and even absurdly, do something about them good or bad, not Clinton. She dropped the damn ball on that, and that's why she fucking lost. So get a damn grip.

Complex institutions doesn't necessarily equate to strong institutions. And as you noted, the massive economic problems are their, and Trump capitalized on them in exactly the manner would-be strong men tend to. If you thinking he's going to actually do anything to fix them, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought, especially when his appointments thus far (and, you know, his actions throughout his whole fucking life) have made it clear that this is to be a government by the very rich, for the very rich.

And if you give him points for just doing something, regardless of weather its good or bad, then I'm surprised you're intelligent enough to operate a key board.

And seriously, Clinton lost for numerous reasons. The outcome was close enough that any one of several things being different could have changed the result. People trying to argue that their is one grand reason she lost are therefore to be suspected, because they probably have an agenda (or just haven't followed the race very closely).

Had the FBI not pulled its last-minute bullshit, she likely would have won too.

And trying to claim that her loss was purely a backlash over economics ignores the racial and misogyny component as well. But then, you're good at ignoring inconvenient racism (more on that shortly).

And the nation and everyone before him, since Trump does not have a long political history, is responsible for Trump being in office. All presidents are hostage to the situation they inherit, which means yes, blaming the guy before you, which they all do, is in fact not only valid but to think otherwise is insane. Learn to deal with it because false hysterics only empower people like him, because every time you cry wolf you undermine the impact of protest and complain when it counts, and when you can prove it, and when a path actually exists to effectively oppose it in a legal manner.

Are you suggesting that I advocated opposing him through illegal means?

In any case, one man's rational concern is another man's hysterics, and I am quite sure Trump could be rolling tanks into the DNC headquarters and their would still be many people dismissing the notion that he is a despot. And no, I'm not saying he's actually going to do that; its an example to make a point.

Its true that their's a danger in overestimating the threat. Their is also a danger in underestimating it.

Lastly, while it is true that it is common practice to blame others, including the preceding administration, and I'm sure Trump will continue to do so, that does not actually excuse him of responsibility for his own actions, and it does not mean that such deflection of blame is automatically valid. He is doing things most incoming Presidents do not, as well.

Or are you really going to try to argue that "blame Obama" is a valid free pass for everything Trump does?

Tell me, how many despots do you know who campaigned on the basis of fewer gun laws, less government regulation, and more economic freedom? I've already helped two different liberal families buy guns since Trump won. Didn't think that would ever happen, but its a fucking fact on the ground now.

Aww, you think Trump's campaign promises are actually an indication of what he's going to do. That's just adorable.

Actually, no. Its kind of fucking scary. And rather sad.

Again I will point out, the DC national guard is made up of RESIDENTS OF DC. Which we all bloody know are overwhelmingly democratic voters. If you think they are going to impose the tyranny of Trump on the population then you should really be concerned about something way grander then the presidency.

As Simon_Jester said, they may not be willing to do it, but Trump may think he can get them to do it. Because he's a pathological narcissist.

Also, the armed forces in general tends to lean more Right wing in its political inclinations than the general public, yes? But yes, DC is probably one of the least likely places for Trump to have widespread popular support.

Interests like letting a bunch of hookers have access to classified information and automatic weapons? Cause that's what the damn SS managed among other failures, and somehow nobody went to jail for that either. Trump wants to trust his own people because nobody trusts him, entirely rational, personally I'm just going to welcome the chance for a real scandal we can impose real consequences against him for.

I'll still take the Secret Service (which I will not abbreviate to SS because of the Nazi connotations that abbreviation carries) over mercenaries.

Like I said above, crying wolf is not useful. Wait for the idiot to actually do something illegal, I doubt it will take long. You might recall at the chants of how Bush was Hitler did not prove effective at counteracting his policies, and its a basic trait of humans brains that people tune shit out the most its repeated.

Trump has already done illegal things, if we take him at his own fucking word.

And ugly as it may be, and I'm not saying its a good idea, relentless exaggerated mudslinging does take a toll. I believe Hillary Clinton lost in no small part because the Republicans spent thirty years defaming her, and creating a public perception of her as corrupt and evil despite her never being convicted of a single damn thing.

No what is disgustingly stupid is that someone like you, complaining that the US is heading for tyranny at the hands of a billionair and worried about the NATIONAL GUARD imposing it on protesters, sees no problem with the idea that citizens could be forced to fight other citizens while the rich were allowed to fucking buy their way out of doing so while the president suppresses the media with the damn army. That's such a fucked up contradiction I can only assume you just haven't fucking thought about it in a rational manner.

The crowd was an irrational mob, but only because it was forced to be one, because if it did not resist it would be forced to kill anyway, and when you back humans into a corner that is what they fucking do, lash out at the nearest target. On an economic basis, that is more or less what happened in the last election too.

The next time the US had a draft BTW, it had no rich people exemption. I wonder why?

First off, I never once defended that draft or any other. I am morally opposed to the draft, and consider it a form of involuntary servitude that should be considered a violation of the 13 Amendment (although that Amendment was passed after the New York Draft Riot). So I expect you to immediately retract and apologize for the claim that I do not object to the draft, or to the rich being able to buy their way out of it.

Secondly...

THEY. WERE. A. LYNCH. MOB. A giant lynch mob that rampaged out of control across a major city for days on end. A point you still haven't really acknowledged. Are you really fucking morally bankrupt enough to say that they were "forced" to be one?

Apparently so.

In which case...

Burn in hell, you racist piece of shit.

[Flagg]

What riot? WTF are TRR and SS reaching into their diapers and flinging whatever they pull out at each other about?

[The Romulan Republic]

What riot? WTF are TRR and SS reaching into their diapers and flinging whatever they pull out at each other about?

Sea Skimmer brought up the New York Draft Riot during the Civil War to take a shot at Lincoln's policies, despite it having fuck-all to do with the actual topic of this thread.

Considering that the Draft Riot was basically a five day (sorry, it went on longer than I previously stated) city-wide lynch mob, I find his sympathy with the perpetrators, and his insistence on portraying them as victims, rather appalling.

From Team of Rivals, by Doris Kerns Goodwin, page 537 (yes, the book is a pretty positive portrayal of Lincoln, but good luck finding a source on the Civil War that is not biased in Lincoln's favour but not pro-Confederate trash), here's an excerpt on the Draft Riot:

""Scarcely had two dozen names been called," the New York Times reported, "when a crowd, numbering perhaps 500," stormed the building "with clubs, stones, brickbats and other missiles." Entering through the broken windows, they stoned the drafting officers, smashed the giant wheel, shredded the lists and records, and then set the building on fire.

Returning to the street, the mob, composed mainly of poor Irish immigrants, turned its vengeance against anyone it encountered. "It seemed to be an understood thing," the Times reporter noted, "that the negroes should be attacked wherever found, whether they offered any provocation or not. As soon as one of these unfortunate people was spied, whether on a cart, a railroad car, or in the street, he was immediately set upon by a crowd of men and boys." Terror unfolded as the rioters beat their victims to death and then strung their bodies on trees. An orphanage for black children was burned to the ground, hundreds of stores were looted, and dozens of policemen lost their lives. More than a thousand people were killed or wounded.

The riots continued unchecked for five days, becoming "the all engrossing topic of conversation" in Washington. The inability of the authorities to restore law and order prompted Chase to announce his desire to "have the power for a week." The mob violence finally ended when a regiment of soldiers, returning from Pennsylvania, entered the city. Although some advised Lincoln to suspend the draft indefinitely, he insisted that it go forward."

Yeah, my heart just bleeds for them.

[Ralin]

What riot? WTF are TRR and SS reaching into their diapers and flinging whatever they pull out at each other about?

There were massive riots in New York City in response to Lincoln's use of conscription during the Civil War. Sea Skimmer brought it up as an example to put Trump's crimes and probable crimes in context. They're arguing about it.

It is, to put it mildly, a tangent.