ADVERTISEMENT

How Soon Before He’s Told “You’re Fired”

I mostly agree with this post. As I clearly said, I don't want Trump to call in the army. I would prefer that the Governors and mayors had dealt with this up front. But how much death and destruction has to go unchecked before we're stating that Trump should have acted sooner? Is it 10 deaths? 20? $1B in property damage?

As for your AOC analogy, her use would not be in compliance with the law as its written. Trump's use today would be. That's a bigger difference than the inching of precedence.


We’ll just have to disagree on the use of precedent. Believe me I hope you are right and I am wrong!

This is very hard to say because it makes me appear heartless, and I’m not. But it seems to me the onus of “how many have to die” falls on the local government, not the feds. I’m well aware that the mayors and governors and media will cry like little bitches and point their pudgy fingers at Trump, and insist they are helpless. But they’ll do that anyway. If he insinuates himself into the daily dealings of putting down the riots he will be blamed for every injury, every broken pane of glass, every death from that point on.

It’s in the Democrat playbook to make everything his fault no matter what he does. But have no fear, he would not be without support. Rush and Sean and Fox have proven to be more than capable of broadcasting his side.
 
Yes, I expect local riots to be contained by local law enforcement. I want to see riots in OKC be dealt with by OKC police, county sheriff departments and state troopers. That’s what we pay them for. What I don’t want to see is a contingent of marines flown in from Camp LeJune patrolling the streets in combat gear, having check points where I am instructed to produce my papers. So, yes, I suppose you could say I want 140 cities to police themselves regardless of the unifying theme for lawless behavior and wanton destruction.
Dan, what should be done when local and state leadership are either incompetent or unwilling to do what needs to be done to make communities safe? Should the federal government just ignore those situations and abandon its responsibility to the citizens?
 
Dan, what should be done when local and state leadership are either incompetent or unwilling to do what needs to be done to make communities safe? Should the federal government just ignore those situations and abandon its responsibility to the citizens?
I ‘m sure this will offend many people, but I do not agree it is the fed’s responsibility to protect citizens in such situations. If the local
leadership of OKC, or the state leadership of OK is that incompetent, is that unwilling to take all necessary steps to assure its citizens’ safety, if that’s the degree of competence we voted into office then we deserve what we get.

One thought that circles around in my brain, just percolating, (nothing solidified) centers around the Second Amendment. I hear guys on this board constantly talking about how many guns they own and how tough they’ll be if the government tries to take them away. Well, if our local government is so feeble in responding to chaotic crime sprees, why wouldn't people that live in a free society, people with the liberty to own guns and the right to protect themselves say hell with it, if the mayor’s not going to protect my neighbors I sure as hell will. Obviously there are a lot of kinks that I haven’t worked out, but one of the tenets about being free is accepting responsibility for maintaining that freedom. If the government won’t do it free people should do it themselves.
 
Last edited:
I ‘m sure this will offend many people, but I do not agree it is the fed’s responsibility to protect citizens in such situations. If the local
leadership of OKC, or the state leadership of OK is that incompetent, is that unwilling to take all necessary steps to assure its citizens’ safety, if that’s the degree of competence we voted into office then we deserve what we get.

One thought that circles around in my brain, just percolating, nothing solidified centers around the Second Amendment. I hear guys on this board constantly talking about how managed guns they iwn
So all of the folks who took the oath of office swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, should abandon the oath and ignore the citizens that are victims of poor leadership because they voted for that leadership?
 
So all of the folks who took the oath of office swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, should abandon the oath and ignore the citizens that are victims of poor leadership because they voted for that leadership?
When the alternative is to establish a police state identical to Nazi Germany, Communist China, Socialist Venezuela, oppressive Cuba, yeah, I say let the citizens fend for themselves. I guess I have more faith in my fellow Americans than you. I do not think of us as helpless victims. I think of us as righteous individualists who aren’t going to sit quietly while some rogue elements intimidate feckless politicians. It’s in our DNA! Too many of us have forgotten that!
 
When the alternative is to establish a police state identical to Nazi Germany, Communist China, Socialist Venezuela, oppressive Cuba, yeah, I say let the citizens fend for themselves. I guess I have more faith in my fellow Americans than you. I do not think of us as helpless victims. I think of us as righteous individualists who aren’t going to sit quietly while some rogue elements intimidate feckless politicians. It’s in our DNA! Too many of us have forgotten that!
That's quite the hyperbole, Dan. It's too bad that everyone can't afford to live in a gated community like you. Plenty of people have no means to defend themselves against mobs of rioters and looters. I wouldn't expect any ivory tower resident to understand that though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
That's quite the hyperbole, Dan. It's too bad that everyone can't afford to live in a gated community like you. Plenty of people have no means to defend themselves against mobs of rioters and looters. I wouldn't expect any ivory tower resident to understand that though.
You got me! I live in a highly fortified weaponized compound made up of mostly old people like myself, mostly a bunch of blue haired widows. We could hold off a veritable army! So, yeah, I can afford to talk big since I survive in an elitist universe. Damn I live a privileged life!

An anecdote: my best friend lives in west Tulsa in the 800 square foot house he grew up in, it’s been handed down to him by his parents as his inheritance. Every other house in that neighborhood looks like his. The neighborhood is comprised of what many of you might call white trash, working men and women, some of whom occasionally spend some time in lockup. You might look at that neighborhood and think “oh, those poor helpless potential victims,” but you would be as wrong as you could be. The cops don’t patrol the neighborhood for two reasons. One: they’re not particularly welcome. And more importantly, two: there hasn’t been a reported crime in that neighborhood in a couple of decades because those people look out for each other, and woe be it if a guy gets caught vandalizing or burglarizing one of them, because they will beat him senseless.

I think you are being a little too “social justicey” in your concern that people can’t protect themselves. I think when they have to be people are tougher than you give them
credit for.
 
You got me! I live in a highly fortified weaponized compound made up of mostly old people like myself, mostly a bunch of blue haired widows. We could hold off a veritable army! So, yeah, I can afford to talk big since I survive in an elitist universe. Damn I live a privileged life!

An anecdote: my best friend lives in west Tulsa in the 800 square foot house he grew up in, it’s been handed down to him by his parents as his inheritance. Every other house in that neighborhood looks like his. The neighborhood is comprised of what many of you might call white trash, working men and women, some of whom occasionally spend some time in lockup. You might look at that neighborhood and think “oh, those poor helpless potential victims,” but you would be as wrong as you could be. The cops don’t patrol the neighborhood for two reasons. One: they’re not particularly welcome. And more importantly, two: there hasn’t been a reported crime in that neighborhood in a couple of decades because those people look out for each other, and woe be it if a guy gets caught vandalizing or burglarizing one of them, because they will beat him senseless.

I think you are being a little too “social justicey” in your concern that people can’t protect themselves. I think when they have to be people are tougher than you give them
credit for.
OK, I’ve been going at this all day. I’m pretty much talked out. You guys talk amongst yourselves. I’m out for the night.
 
You got me! I live in a highly fortified weaponized compound made up of mostly old people like myself, mostly a bunch of blue haired widows. We could hold off a veritable army! So, yeah, I can afford to talk big since I survive in an elitist universe. Damn I live a privileged life!

An anecdote: my best friend lives in west Tulsa in the 800 square foot house he grew up in, it’s been handed down to him by his parents as his inheritance. Every other house in that neighborhood looks like his. The neighborhood is comprised of what many of you might call white trash, working men and women, some of whom occasionally spend some time in lockup. You might look at that neighborhood and think “oh, those poor helpless potential victims,” but you would be as wrong as you could be. The cops don’t patrol the neighborhood for two reasons. One: they’re not particularly welcome. And more importantly, two: there hasn’t been a reported crime in that neighborhood in a couple of decades because those people look out for each other, and woe be it if a guy gets caught vandalizing or burglarizing one of them, because they will beat him senseless.

I think you are being a little too “social justicey” in your concern that people can’t protect themselves. I think when they have to be people are tougher than you give them
credit for.
I'm betting that your chances of being within 100 miles from those Nazi Venezuelan Chinese Communist Cuban Marines from Camp Lejeune is probably around nonety none point none none none none none percent, Dan.

Don't get pissy because you're that easy to read. What's good for Dan in Gated Phantasyland should be awesome for everyone else! Those poor single moms in neighborhoods hit by riots need to suffer the consequences of their votes because Ponca Dan might be less than 3,000 miles from US troops deployed to secure their neighborhoods.

Your pain is real.
 
OK, I’ve been going at this all day. I’m pretty much talked out. You guys talk amongst yourselves. I’m out for the night.
And there's the usual Dan bitchout. Of course you don't want to stick around to see your idiotic posts taken apart with logic and reality. You know what they say about you... passive aggressive AF. That's definitely true.
 
And there's the usual Dan bitchout. Of course you don't want to stick around to see your idiotic posts taken apart with logic and reality. You know what they say about you... passive aggressive AF. That's definitely true.
Damn, Medic, overreact much? I was on this thread for over 12 hours, conversed politely with all involved, didn’t dodge a thing. I’m sorry I didn’t stay long into the night to continue. But you can be assured I was not bitching out to avoid your rebuttals. I was not aware you had much more to say. You were free to dismantle my argument whether I was here or not. And I would willingly have taken up the conversation again this morning. Still will if you want. I enjoy political discussions or I wouldn’t participate. I guess what you mean by calling me passive aggressive is that I didn’t resort to name calling. Yeah, that’s not normally my style. Like Popeye says: I am what I am.
 
I ‘m sure this will offend many people, but I do not agree it is the fed’s responsibility to protect citizens in such situations. If the local
leadership of OKC, or the state leadership of OK is that incompetent, is that unwilling to take all necessary steps to assure its citizens’ safety, if that’s the degree of competence we voted into office then we deserve what we get.

One thought that circles around in my brain, just percolating, (nothing solidified) centers around the Second Amendment. I hear guys on this board constantly talking about how many guns they own and how tough they’ll be if the government tries to take them away. Well, if our local government is so feeble in responding to chaotic crime sprees, why wouldn't people that live in a free society, people with the liberty to own guns and the right to protect themselves say hell with it, if the mayor’s not going to protect my neighbors I sure as hell will. Obviously there are a lot of kinks that I haven’t worked out, but one of the tenets about being free is accepting responsibility for maintaining that freedom. If the government won’t do it free people should do it themselves.

I actually stated this was the alternative and its much worse than calling in trained military. Its exactly the one reason I'd support Trump calling in the military, because there are 4 possible resolutions in my mind, in order of preference:

1) Governors/Mayors do their jobs and protect law abiding citizens, their property and their livelihoods from looters and rioters. Thus far, we haven't seen much of this.

2) The President steps in for the local leadership who failed to act and calls in the Army to rein in control. Not a preferred solution, but better than the next two.

3) Local citizenry takes matters into their own hands. And you end up with rioters vs. armed, frustrated, trigger-happy civilians. This would become a Whites vs. Blacks violence and just escalate the tensions further.

4) Do nothing and let the rioters and looters win via anarchy.

If you see a different path to resolution than one of these four, feel free to share it.
 
I actually stated this was the alternative and its much worse than calling in trained military. Its exactly the one reason I'd support Trump calling in the military, because there are 4 possible resolutions in my mind, in order of preference:

1) Governors/Mayors do their jobs and protect law abiding citizens, their property and their livelihoods from looters and rioters. Thus far, we haven't seen much of this.

2) The President steps in for the local leadership who failed to act and calls in the Army to rein in control. Not a preferred solution, but better than the next two.

3) Local citizenry takes matters into their own hands. And you end up with rioters vs. armed, frustrated, trigger-happy civilians. This would become a Whites vs. Blacks violence and just escalate the tensions further.

4) Do nothing and let the rioters and looters win via anarchy.

If you see a different path to resolution than one of these four, feel free to share it.
Yeah, #3 is brutally sobering and the least desirable. Yikes!
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
Absolutely the least desirable. The hope would be the threat of #3 would encourage the cowardly governors and mayors to do the job they were elected to do.

Exactly and if they don't, this is why I'd prefer the Trump use the Army. I don't like the precedent, and yes, the media and left will happily use it to accuse Trump of power-grabbing and racism, etc. But the fact is (and based on your statement, you agree), the alternative is worse. Option #3 will lead to lots of deaths that look a lot like that Aubrey killing.
 
Exactly and if they don't, this is why I'd prefer the Trump use the Army. I don't like the precedent, and yes, the media and left will happily use it to accuse Trump of power-grabbing and racism, etc. But the fact is (and based on your statement, you agree), the alternative is worse. Option #3 will lead to lots of deaths that look a lot like that Aubrey killing.


As I said earlier Option 3 is not a seriously thought out idea, just something twirling around in my twisted brain. I am against bringing in military troops under nearly every condition. Pressure from the victims and potential victims of the violence (which is everybody) ought to be brought down on meek governors with the force of a sledge hammer. I repeat my contention they are being meek because they don’t want to look mean, and they’ll get a twofer if they can entice Trump to introduce armed military. They see it as a can’t win for him/can’t lose for them as long as they pretend they are powerless to stop it.
 
As I said earlier Option 3 is not a seriously thought out idea, just something twirling around in my twisted brain. I am against bringing in military troops under nearly every condition. Pressure from the victims and potential victims of the violence (which is everybody) ought to be brought down on meek governors with the force of a sledge hammer. I repeat my contention they are being meek because they don’t want to look mean, and they’ll get a twofer if they can entice Trump to introduce armed military. They see it as a can’t win for him/can’t lose for them as long as they pretend they are powerless to stop it.

If the governors don't step up (and thus far they haven't) and this weekend when the protests get rambunctious again and some white store owner guns down two black teenagers looting his store, then what? The escalations this would cause would be immense. Do you think David Muir is going to be talking about how DeBlasio was to blame because he refused to arrest and prosecute the looters previously and thus emboldened them to continue their malfeasance? Is the MSM going to put the 'sledgehammer' of pressure on these governors? You and I both know better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
If the governors don't step up (and thus far they haven't) and this weekend when the protests get rambunctious again and some white store owner guns down two black teenagers looting his store, then what? The escalations this would cause would be immense. Do you think David Muir is going to be talking about how DeBlasio was to blame because he refused to arrest and prosecute the looters previously and thus emboldened them to continue their malfeasance? Is the MSM going to put the 'sledgehammer' of pressure on these governors? You and I both know better.
David Muir probably will not. But Rush, Sean, Laura, Candice, Fox News and many many others will. People in the right need to abandon their victim mentality when it comes to the media. They have plenty of voices on their side.

As for how to answer your question “then what?” Who knows. Do you think the reaction would be milder if it is an armed soldier that does the shooting?
 
David Muir probably will not. But Rush, Sean, Laura, Candice, Fox News and many many others will. People in the right need to abandon their victim mentality when it comes to the media. They have plenty of voices on their side.

As for how to answer your question “then what?” Who knows. Do you think the reaction would be milder if it is an armed soldier that does the shooting?
Here’s how I see David Muir playing it out. White store owner shoots a kid, sparking more unrest. Muir condemns Trump for not sending in troops. So Trump sends in troops, an incident happens and Muir condemns Trump for sending in troops.

Trump is going to be criticized/condemned no matter what he does, that’s just the way it is.
 
Here’s how I see David Muir playing it out. White store owner shoots a kid, sparking more unrest. Muir condemns Trump for not sending in troops. So Trump sends in troops, an incident happens and Muir condemns Trump for sending in troops.

Trump is going to be criticized/condemned no matter what he does, that’s just the way it is.
And that's the bitch of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
David Muir probably will not. But Rush, Sean, Laura, Candice, Fox News and many many others will. People in the right need to abandon their victim mentality when it comes to the media. They have plenty of voices on their side.

As for how to answer your question “then what?” Who knows. Do you think the reaction would be milder if it is an armed soldier that does the shooting?

The problem is that the people who watch Rush or Maddow have already have made up their minds and that pressure is irrelevant. Just look at this board. Those on the right laugh when CUP or Pilt link a CNN or Wapo article. They do the same to the right when someone links a FoxNews story. But David Muir is a reporter (supposedly) who is reporting news and not spouting opinions. He also has more viewers than any of the others (many of whom make up the middle) as the ratings for the nightly news is 2-3x that of any of the Fox news programs which are 2x over any of their MSNBC or CNN opposites. If the Nightly News isn't reporting on the pressure, then its not really being applied.

And to your last question, undoubtedly yes. That soldier will have the support of his squadron around him, and has the training to be less likely to respond to minor, non-threatening provocation that a civilian may not.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT