Missouri goes into East St.Louis. They get robbed and have to walk back home.
Would be a shame if they tried that in a blue state that had a national guard.
Or maybe a state with the ability to call up their own State Guard. You know, in case the State’s National Guard was considered compromised.
I think thats called a State Guard
Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh dismisses Mena’s concerns.
“I believe that legislation is unnecessary,” he told Stateline in an interview. “I think it’s what is generally considered a statement bill, but you have to treat it seriously. I’m not sure what they’re getting at here other than a swipe at Donald Trump.”
I won’t overrule Roe v Wade if you confirm my appointment. It’s settled law. (or something akin to that)
The problem with this scenario is that it is completely wrong. The Supreme Court will not overrule Roe v. Wade.
https://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v34n03_dd1_sedler_final.pdf
Stupid people fall for this shit. GOP are proven liars. Don’t take any chances with them. Orange gave them permission to be as awful as they want to be and they are seizing it… again, but even more this time.
Exactly. We can’t rely on any sort of subtly or assumption of law. Precedent, be it of the courts or simply the traditional way of doing things, won’t stop them. It has to be solid law, and they’re still going to take it to court.
The red states sure love meddling. Hawaii has a good time avoiding them completely.
Having an ocean between yourself and the nearest red state isn’t practical for most of us.
Not practical but definitely preferable
Is this the “state rights” I keep hearing about?
Removed by mod
The dubvee.org instance is going to ban you for this comment.
Who?
Nah fuck war I don’t want that and neither do you. We gotta figure out how to win without that.
A necessary action is often times an unwanted one. We have already crossed the point where non-violent solutions were useful, they are little more than half measures. Perhaps we might get lucky, but as Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus once said " Hope for peace prepare for war"
Edit: unwanted not unwarranted fucken auto correct
I’m fine with preparations. If it comes to war then we must try to win. But we don’t need to make that outcome more likely. I think the right has a huge advantage in war because of their inherent militarism and because legally Trump is the commander in chief and the military is very likely to side with him. It’s not to our advantage to fight them militarily.
But I think there are still other paths available to us. You are wrong that nonviolent solutions are not useful. They can and have been used successfully in situations far more dire than the situation in the US today. There is a widespread lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of civil resistance in our culture today and we need to educate ourselves about these tactics that have worked to bring down dictatorships in the past.
I highly recommend this book for a deeper dive on this topic: https://commonslibrary.org/civil-resistance-what-everyone-needs-to-know/
Swift and early violence could prevent a bigger problem later on
How exactly?
The fascists are pushing on every single guardrail and getting away with it. Violent resistance now draws a line in the sand and turns the public against them. Like you, nobody wants a war, but it’s easier to fight back now than it is after they’ve put loyalists in every position and completely reshaped the entire state apparatus into their fascist authoritarian goal.
A military coup today to cut the heads off the snake would save you many hundreds of thousands of lives if a world war is required to destroy Trump’s fascist regime.
A few deaths now might stop a future invasion of former allies. Retaking control now would keep the nuclear arsenal away from these psychos
There’s a lot to unpack here. Your assessment of the situation is right—this is extremely dangerous and it cannot be allowed to stand. But that means our political strategy is more important than ever. People seem to think that because this is dangerous and we’re angry we just need to go for the most extreme reaction possible but this does not logically follow if it’s not effective in achieving our goals.
First you need to understand that this is happening because a plurality of Americans want it to. So it’s not at all clear to me that violent actions will turn anyone against them. Maybe if the acts are small and well targeted and there is a huge, violent overreaction, but remember that their control over the media means it will be painted in the worst possible light. I personally think this only increases the danger and is more likely to turn fence-sitters and even some supporters against us than to join the cause.
A military coup is a particularly bad solution. Firstly because it has exactly zero chance of happening—our military leaders are not going to take Trump out because he’s trying to perform an internal coup. They just won’t. And even if they did, there is a danger they don’t relinquish power. And even if they did that it still normalizes the military as the highest power that can simply depose any president they don’t like. It’s hard to imagine a more destructive action to American democracy even if it did remove Trump from office.
The best actions at this time are raising awareness of what’s happening and building and organizing public support and resistance. People are scared and discouraged right now. We need actions that change this energy and unite people. Like it or not, political violence is divisive in US culture and it won’t achieve this. Once our movement is widely supported and powerful we can take on Trump directly but we need to build that up first.
In the meantime, courts, bureaucrats and politicians need to do everything they can to raise the alarm, slow things down, and impose political costs on them to make their takeover more difficult. This can buy us time to muster the public support we need to win.
I hope you’re right, because what you’re describing is how things are headed. An entrenched fascist government will be a lot harder to remove with or without force, however.
Sadly in either case we’re looking at a decade or more to undo the damage that’s already been done, if it’s even reversible.
Whatever happens I’m certain now that American hegemony is collapsing in my lifetime, and hopefully that ends up being a good thing.
It’s at least possible it may be a good thing but without a broader liberation movement to fill the power vacuum, it’s more likely it will simply be filled by another imperialistic nation or coalition. I don’t see much sign of such a movement so I’m not very optimistic.
Pls do
Are you gonna?
If I was that persons attorney I would advise them not to answer this question
I would as well, but I’m not entirely certain that answering it would be a crime. Stating that you will shoot someone in self defense, or community defense, especially when that person is violating several Federal Laws with their current actions, should be legal for all intents and purposes. That is literally advocating for law and order.
Yeah, he wasn’t advocating that individuals kill national guard troops, but that the governments of the invaded states should.
Yep, raise up militia and rally the national guard of the invaded states. Makes the statement more direct as well as being more effective overall, also harder to spin as being random murders.
We had to do it last time this asshole was president to prevent them from stealing PPE for Jared’s buddy.
Nice try FBI
Removed by mod
“states’ rights!”
if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.
Why would blue states fear only red state national guard if this is the case? The local guard would have to enforce the federal edicts, right?
I guess if they don’t, the only two options are do nothing or confront the invading guard, the latter of which sounds a lot like civil war.
if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.
And yet I remember not so long ago at the Texas border where Abbott refused to have the NG stand down when Biden ordered it. So there’s precedent already there to ignore Cheeto in Charge’s orders
there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it
Whoever wrote this needs to go back and read Thomas Jefferson or pretty much any history of any collapsing authoritarian regime in history.
They could obey the orders. Or, they could say “lol no”. What’s he going to do, activate their remote-control collars?
The US military, National Guard included, goes through training that heavily emphasizes support for the constitution and what to do about illegal or unconstitutional orders.
It’s actually pretty dangerous to start to bend the knee to an authoritarian despot in this way. By presenting Trump’s illegal bullshit as some kind of pre-ordained structure that other people will have to follow, of course, because that’s the system, they are normalizing it. Even if he were following US law, which he isn’t, they’d have the option to tell him to go fuck himself, and they’d be in some excellent historical company in doing so.
Exactly. People need to move past this mindset that assumes these rules, and traditions, and norms are laws of nature. No, they’re just ideas that people created and no hand of god is going to sweep out of the sky and smite you if you just don’t do them. We need to start acknowledging and participating in the increasingly asymmetrical warfare that Republicans started.
Isn’t it illegal to obey illegal orders? Good soldiers don’t follow illegal orders, at least; even if not illegal itself.
I was a soldier and was taught to tell anyone who gives me an illegal order to fuck off. Including the president. You are absolutely not protected just because a superior gave you an order.
It’s a good thing that there is no history of soldiers obeying illegal orders and committing atrocities. Of course, there are plenty of people in the military who are quite happy obeying those orders because they agree with them.
And luckily they didn’t purge military leadership that’s actually loyal to the constitution, and then use Republican congressional obstruction to prevent promotions for 4 years so Trump could install loyalists…
As much as we like to assume soldiers will follow orders and doctrine as if they were computers running code…they are ultimately human beings with their own free will, reasoning, biases, and agendas, to hell with what is and isn’t legal and proper on paper. It would be a crossroads for the country and everyone who serves.
One of the oldest rules of quelling rebellion is to not use the local soldiers to do it. Too much emotional attachment. Bring in an outside force, preferably ones with standing ethnic or political hatred for those you want to crush.
So the blue states don’t have a National Guard to respond?
It’s a scenario that was so concerning to Washington state Rep. Sharlett Mena that she introduced legislation that would make uninvited deployments of out-of-state troops illegal. Her bill cleared a committee last week and has the backing of Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, who pushed for the proposal in his inaugural address last month.
…
But, as she noted to her colleagues last week, if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.
Hey member in Iraq War II when we were losing a bunch of soldiers and instead of throwing more in or thinking about a draft they just sent over the National Guard?
the National Guard. Who . . .were supposed to be guarding the nation?
Anyway. Just in case some of you were not alive to remember that.
National guard was used a lot in ww2 and many other wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not a new thing
In WWII? Really - where were they deployed?
More or less everywhere, really.
Here’s more
Oh, well, the day after Pearl Harbor makes perfect sense.
I know Washington recently passed an assault weapons ban but we are running into “this is what the second amendment is actually for” territory.
I’m debating whether or not to respond to an email my dad sent me yesterday where a gun rights organization (GOA) he’s a proud member of sent a warning to its members that Pam Bondi might not put a hardline 2A rights nut as head of the ATF.
Not sure if I should let him know the irony of voting for the guy that we’ll actually need to exercise our 2A rights on
Authoritarian regimes receive the power we freely give right? “There’s nothing we can do” is probably a reasonable alarmist statement if trying to get a bill passed, but I assume the “we” in this case is just legislatures not the general public?
Both sides are partially right. This bill is a dog and pony show. Federal law trumps (pun intended) state law. So this law is not really enforcable. And the blue gov can always order his guard to defend the state. Even if the administration federalizes them. Nothing really stops him. So the law doesn’t change much. But it does bring the idea into the news. And for the actual nation guardsmen from red states, it will sow doubt as to which laws they are supposed to follow. For the ones in the blue states it will help move some who might reject fighting other US troops into doing so if ordered. So it just moves the needle a little bit if such a thing were to happen. But it won’t. The administration knows some guardsman would refuse orders on both sides. And that would set an example for federal troops to do the same. So it would weaken them. And they have more than enough illegals to to deport already. They don’t need to trade control for more people to deport. Maybe in 3 years it might be a trade they see as valuable if other factors come into play relating to the next election.
Nice.
- said the nazi filth.
I can assure you I am anything but whatever thoughtless slur that slithers from your thoughts.
Your unelected fuhrer is the one who sieg heil salutes in public.
What else would you be?
