CNN is going to regret carrying so much of the RNC convention

[Libertarian666]

Most CNN viewers have never heard the Republican side of the political argument before. All they have heard is CNN explaining to them what they should think about the Republicans.

So when they carried most of the convention, their viewers saw for the first time what the Republicans had to say for themselves.

This is disastrous for the Democrats because they have been gaslighting their voters with the help of CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the rest of the usual suspects, telling them how awful all Republicans are.

Now they can see and hear the Republicans, and a lot of them are going to think "Wow, those people don't seem like Nazis to me." Of course the Marxist media will try to pull the curtain back in front of the Wizard of Oz, but I don't think it's going to work.

[Mountaineer]

Most CNN viewers have never heard the Republican side of the political argument before. All they have heard is CNN explaining to them what they should think about the Republicans.

So when they carried most of the convention, their viewers saw for the first time what the Republicans had to say for themselves.

This is disastrous for the Democrats because they have been gaslighting their voters with the help of CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the rest of the usual suspects, telling them how awful all Republicans are.

Now they can see and hear the Republicans, and a lot of them are going to think "Wow, those people don't seem like Nazis to me." Of course the Marxist media will try to pull the curtain back in front of the Wizard of Oz, but I don't think it's going to work.

Read all about it, read all about it, "tin hats for sale here" (exact words to soon be parroted on CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT in unison).

[Tortoise]

Very appreciative that @CNN covered the vast majority of the Republican Convention last night. That was really good for CNN, while at the same time being good for our Country. Thank you!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 51715?s=20

[Cortopassi]

As I've said many times, take away Twitter, and Trump does not look bad.

I will have to ding him on getting a bit off the rails at times on Covid though. I think it is his major weakness right now.

If it does continue to decline naturally, it will be good for him. If it doesn't, he is screwed. He still has a big headwind of >1000 people dying per day, and he will have terrible headlines when we pass 200k.

If we hit 250k before the election, where news can call it "a quarter of a million dead" I would call it for Biden right there, regardless of anything else.

And you have to remember, he will become Twitter Trump again shortly.

Can someone enlighten me on the tweet below? He doesn't have the authority to do this, right? It's individual governors?

[Tortoise]

Can someone enlighten me on the tweet below? He doesn't have the authority to do this, right? It's individual governors?

He's saying that if the governor of a given state ("local authorities") asks the federal government for help ("legally asked to help"), it will be sent. Where's the confusion?

[jhogue]

Regardless of misleading pronouncements that have appeared in the mainstream press, the President has sole authority as Commander-in-Chief to federalize the National Guard and deploy it against domestic insurrection. He does not require the consent of state governors in order to do so. Washington mobilized several state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Lincoln did so in 1861 in order to defeat the rebellion of the Confederate states.

[Tortoise]

My understanding is that Trump has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to unilaterally mobilize the National Guard only if he invokes the Insurrection Act. Which he hasn't done yet.

Until then, National Guard mobilization within a state requires that state's governor's approval.

[jhogue]

The Insurrection Act of 1807 did not overturn the Militia Act of 1792. Washington did not ask the governor of Pennsylvania for permission to deploy other states' militias in his state. Lincoln acted under a similar understanding and cited Washington's example on several occasions.

Nor were the actions of Washington and Lincoln ever challenged in a successful case appealed to the Supreme Court: When Michael Dukakis was the governor of Massachusetts in the 1908s, he appealed to the court to prevent the Massachusetts National Guard from being mobilized by President Ronald Reagan and sent to Central America. The Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal, based again on their expansive interpretation of the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief.

A federal judge (who was also a reserve colonel in the US Army) once reminded me that you can seldom go wrong by asking "what would Washington do?" I have no doubt that Washington would crush the present rebellion, just as he did in 1794.

[Cortopassi]

I guess what I'm getting at --- is Trump taking credit for getting the national Guard there when it was really the governor's call and not Trump's?

[Tortoise]

I will have to ding him on getting a bit off the rails at times on Covid though. I think it is his major weakness right now.

In his speech last night, Trump pointed out that he took the initiative by closing off travel to China and Europe before anyone else suggested it, and that he was accused of xenophobia for doing it.

Trump-haters often complain that he doesn’t show leadership, but isn’t making a very unpopular decision based on gut instinct — sticking to one’s convictions even when it’s politically questionable — a good example of strong leadership?

I think Trump should have done much more in the subsequent months to quell the Cooties-19 insanity that flared up across the nation, but that’s a separate complaint that probably differs from yours.

[Cortopassi]

I think Trump should have done much more in the subsequent months to quell the Cooties-19 insanity that flared up across the nation, but that’s a separate complaint that probably differs from yours.

Not really. I have the same general feelings about it as you.

It would have been nice to have a well thought out middle of the road plan by Trump that people could have supported. Not an "everybody's gonna die" plan like CNN/NYT, but also not a denial, which he was in for way too long.

But sadly, we are so polarized, I'm not sure it would have mattered.

[Tortoise]

It would have been nice to have a well thought out middle of the road plan by Trump that people could have supported. Not an "everybody's gonna die" plan like CNN/NYT, but also not a denial, which he was in for way too long.

But sadly, we are so polarized, I'm not sure it would have mattered.

Most of that polarization was fed by a lack of clear, frequent, consistent communication of data and strategy as the outbreak unfolded and we continually learned more about the virus.

That’s what Trump could have helped with, and he failed in that regard.

[I Shrugged]

Ok, the thread has been hijacked, and I have a thought about the new topic. But first, that's a good original point, Tech!

Virus: It's hard to see how anyone would have acted much differently than we or Trump did. Look at other first world countries, they got their parts caught in the ringer about the same as us. It's not as if there is a pandemic every few years to make us leap to that level of concern when something comes up. OTOH we have swine flu, bird flu, etc, and they turn out to be a lot of hoopla but not much impact here.

It's all Monday morning quarterbacking. And I'm not overly fond of cutting Trump a lot of slack. I like to think I'm sort of middle of the road in that dept. The problem in his case is more about what he said, bad PR, than about the actual decisions. He tried too hard to be a cheerleader and optimist, and in retrospect some of that looks bad.

[Kbg]

The Insurrection Act of 1807 did not overturn the Militia Act of 1792. Washington did not ask the governor of Pennsylvania for permission to deploy other states' militias in his state. Lincoln acted under a similar understanding and cited Washington's example on several occasions.

Nor were the actions of Washington and Lincoln ever challenged in a successful case appealed to the Supreme Court: When Michael Dukakis was the governor of Massachusetts in the 1908s, he appealed to the court to prevent the Massachusetts National Guard from being mobilized by President Ronald Reagan and sent to Central America. The Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal, based again on their expansive interpretation of the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief.

A federal judge (who was also a reserve colonel in the US Army) once reminded me that you can seldom go wrong by asking "what would Washington do?" I have no doubt that Washington would crush the present rebellion, just as he did in 1794.

I can tell you after a couple of decades in the military none of the above gets talked about at all. Insurrection is a very specific term and the key phrase is "against the United States" as in someone is trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

What does get talked about is the posse comitatus act. https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Fact- ... tatus-act/

Of note the aforementioned law is applied at the individual level...I've never met a person in the military who wants to get involved in any of this stuff. Foreign bad guys, US military. Internal bad guys, a host of law enforcement agencies. I'm sure there are a few outliers but anytime Trump says involve the US military in this stuff I guarantee there are several hundred thousand people in uniform cringing.

And, anyone on any side of the political spectrum should stay completely away from politicizing the military. Voting with guns and artillery usually caries the election. The fact that anyone who thinks they are conservative would advocate this demonstrates, yet again, they are RINOs and in no way conservative.

[Mark Leavy]

What does get talked about is the posse comitatus act. https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Fact- ... tatus-act/

Of note the aforementioned law is applied at the individual level...I've never met a person in the military who wants to get involved in any of this stuff. Foreign bad guys, US military. Internal bad guys, a host of law enforcement agencies. I'm sure there are a few outliers but anytime Trump says involve the US military in this stuff I guarantee there are several hundred thousand people in uniform cringing.

And, anyone on any side of the political spectrum should stay completely away from politicizing the military. Voting with guns and artillery usually caries the election. The fact that anyone who thinks they are conservative would advocate this demonstrates, yet again, they are RINOs and in no way conservative.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

posse comitatus is on every military mind. I had a hell of a time testing equipment stateside. If there was even the slightest possibility that I was violating posse comitatus I would get a heads up from anyone from a general to a mechanic. The military is pretty serious about this stuff. Pretty reassuring.

Mark

[pp4me]

Of note the aforementioned law is applied at the individual level...I've never met a person in the military who wants to get involved in any of this stuff. Foreign bad guys, US military. Internal bad guys, a host of law enforcement agencies. I'm sure there are a few outliers but anytime Trump says involve the US military in this stuff I guarantee there are several hundred thousand people in uniform cringing.

I understand that military members cringe at getting involved in domestic matters but I wouldn't say it's because of the oath they (we) swore.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

According to BLM the constitution is an instrument of white supremacy. When you see rioters attacking government buildings and shouting "death to America" what else would you call it but an insurrection? I suspect we will be finding out more and more in the coming days that it was an organized insurrection too.

I suspect the real reason the military cringes is because they don't want to be involved in a war where they aren't allowed to shoot the enemy and can be tried in a civilian court if they do.

[Kriegsspiel]

Of note the aforementioned law is applied at the individual level...I've never met a person in the military who wants to get involved in any of this stuff. Foreign bad guys, US military. Internal bad guys, a host of law enforcement agencies. I'm sure there are a few outliers but anytime Trump says involve the US military in this stuff I guarantee there are several hundred thousand people in uniform cringing.

Yup.

[Tortoise]

Why do most military folks cringe at that? They would prefer to let the rioters burn and loot the Democrat-run cities into oblivion? Their sentiment is, “Oh well, they voted for those leftist assholes — let them reap the consequences”?

Let’s take a more extreme example and assume the residents of a given state vote for a governor who starts to round up certain people and summarily execute them while the police and other law enforcement agencies are forced to stand down. Would military folks still cringe when it’s suggested that they may be called upon by the federal government to restore law and order in that state?

Where is the line drawn?

[Kriegsspiel]

Why do most military folks cringe at that? They would prefer to let the rioters burn and loot the Democrat-run cities into oblivion? Their sentiment is, “Oh well, they voted for those leftist assholes — let them reap the consequences”?

It's the police's job, not the military's.

[Tortoise]

It's the police's job, not the military's.

What if the police are not allowed to do their job?

[yankees60]

Why do most military folks cringe at that? They would prefer to let the rioters burn and loot the Democrat-run cities into oblivion? Their sentiment is, “Oh well, they voted for those leftist assholes — let them reap the consequences”?

It's the police's job, not the military's.

Are these the main differences?

The military exists to fight an enemy (non-fellow country citizens) and, in the worst case (but not abnormal case) to kill.

The police exist to serve and protect fellow citizens and to preserve law and order, not to conquer an enemy and and engage in much violence against said enemy, resulting in many enemy casualties and deaths.

In other words, they are trained differently for much different uses and purposes. And, neither is suited for the other's role.

Vinny

[Mark Leavy]

Why do most military folks cringe at that? They would prefer to let the rioters burn and loot the Democrat-run cities into oblivion? Their sentiment is, “Oh well, they voted for those leftist assholes — let them reap the consequences”?

It's the police's job, not the military's.

Are these the main differences?

The military exists to fight an enemy (non-fellow country citizens) and, in the worst case (but not abnormal case) to kill.

The police exist to serve and protect fellow citizens and to preserve law and order, not to conquer an enemy and and engage in much violence against said enemy, resulting in many enemy casualties and deaths.

In other words, they are trained differently for much different uses and purposes. And, neither is suited for the other's role.

Vinny

It sounds like you have the gist of it, Vinny.

I don't think most of the country realizes just what an effective killing machine the US army, marines, AF are. Unlike the police, who are ostensibly there to 'serve and protect', the military solves problems by killing it. Quickly and efficiently. And they get bonus points for a job well done.

The country's founders were pretty sure that you don't want to turn this machine against your own citizens. That was good thinking.
There is definitely a huge problem right now, but you don't want to fix it with the military.

The national guard has a more nuanced mission. That might be the place to start if/when the mayors completely lose control.

[Kbg]

Why do most military folks cringe at that? They would prefer to let the rioters burn and loot the Democrat-run cities into oblivion? Their sentiment is, “Oh well, they voted for those leftist assholes — let them reap the consequences”?

Let’s take a more extreme example and assume the residents of a given state vote for a governor who starts to round up certain people and summarily execute them while the police and other law enforcement agencies are forced to stand down. Would military folks still cringe when it’s suggested that they may be called upon by the federal government to restore law and order in that state?

Where is the line drawn?

First question, not the military's job. And, yep that's pretty much how I feel. Guiliani became the mayor of NYC because people got sick of what the Dem's had let the city turn in to.

Now that we've established you are a Trump loving RINO vs. an actual conservative, help me out here. Who is pulling the trigger for the governor and who is forcing the police to stand down?

And exactly how is the military going to solve this vs. say the US Marshals, FBI, DEA, US Border Patrol etc.? We bringing in the B-52s, need some naval gun fire, M-1s required to level a couple of city blocks? Unless the governor took over a military base he's what got some pistols, rifles and maybe some illegal automatic weapons? The above law enforcement agencies are not exactly packing .19 cal derringers and 410 shotguns. They have elements that can hang with a light infantry platoon no problem.

In any event, you should read some history vs. making up stupid hypotheticals. Latin American history is not a bad place to start for this topic. Eastern European and Middle Eastern history will do nicely as well.

[Tortoise]

First question, not the military's job. And, yep that's pretty much how I feel. Guiliani became the mayor of NYC because people got sick of what the Dem's had let the city turn in to.

Okay, that's a fair answer.

Now that we've established you are a Trump loving RINO vs. an actual conservative...

I'm not registered Republican and don't refer to myself as one, so by definition I'm not a RINO. I do plan to vote for Trump (hence my new signature) but I wouldn't say I love him. Someone like Ron Paul would be much better, but sadly that's not an option for us this year.

...help me out here. Who is pulling the trigger for the governor and who is forcing the police to stand down? And exactly how is the military going to solve this vs. say the US Marshals, FBI, DEA, US Border Patrol etc.? We bringing in the B-52s, need some naval gun fire, M-1s required to level a couple of city blocks? Unless the governor took over a military base he's what got some pistols, rifles and maybe some illegal automatic weapons? The above law enforcement agencies are not exactly packing .19 cal derringers and 410 shotguns. They have elements that can hang with a light infantry platoon no problem.

All good points. My hypothetical example was admittedly not a very good one. Not well thought out. This is an issue that I was actually genuinely curious about, hence my questions. I wasn't trying to muscle my way into the conversation and bludgeon anyone over the head with my point of view, so if my post came across that way it was my fault and I apologize for any confusion.

In any event, you should read some history vs. making up stupid hypotheticals. Latin American history is not a bad place to start for this topic. Eastern European and Middle Eastern history will do nicely as well.

Thanks for avoiding condescension and insults, Kbg. It always pleases me to see folks elevate the level of discussion on this forum.

[Kbg]

Yeah, mea culpa on this one. My apologies. The last line was not cool or civil.