A Pro-Trump Militant Group Has Recruited Thousands of Police, Soldiers, and Veterans

[lil devils x]

No-where does it say they were for the primary. Most of the wording implies it was for the main Election but they're Military votes from people serving outside of the USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/25/what-we-know-about-those-discarded-trump-ballots-pennsylvania/

Did you read your own link?
"Our interviews further revealed that this issue was a problem in the primary election — therefore a known issue — and that the problem has not been corrected.”

Read the link and you will see it was very much a non issue, 7 out of the 9 ballots were for Trump in a primary election, and not some widespread problem.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Gordon_4]

Constitution and " I will obey the orders of the President of the United States " The President separately. They specifically designate the president for a reason.
They would have to prove that he lost the election, which takes time and courts. Until then the sitting president controls the military. Most of the military voted for Trump in 2016. Which normally wouldn't matter, but it could impact this specific issue as to who they believe. If the military actually believe and support the president that the election was tampered with and fraudulent, they would still be under the direction of the president.

I didn't shift my argument, look at the OP, you shifted that. I never said they would WIN against the US military I keep stating THEY ARE US MILITARY, not against them. They can access whatever military equipment they want, that doesn't mean they would win a fight against them. I never said they would be fighting them at all. Go re read.

You keep shifting it to VS the US military no matter how many times I say " They ARE the US military". They can easily get whatever equipment they need and I doubt our government would do anything to stop them due to who controls out government.

My position was and still IS: They can get whatever military resources they want due to being former and active US military and that the republican government likely would not act against them in the first place due to seeing them as being " on their side" so who would? Not that they would even fight the US military at all. Being able to access military resources doesn't mean actually either being willing to fight the other to begin with. They can access whatever military resources they want to fight against " the liberal left" they have said they oppose, who doesn't actually control the US military. These guys are saying they would violently resist any attempt at enforcing " the green new deal" and other " liberal agenda". In their minds it is a matter of them vs "Urban liberals trying to impose their policies on us against our will".

Every sworn member in a First World branch of military service has, for the past seventy years, also has it drummed into their head that they also have a moral and professional duty to not obey orders that are unlawful. A lawfully defeated president in the White House refusing to leave because conspiracy bullshit isn’t going to be able to convince the military to spot him a bacon and egg roll, let alone throw their support behind him.

 

[lil devils x]

Every sworn member in a First World branch of military service has, for the past seventy years, also has it drummed into their head that they also have a moral and professional duty to not obey orders that are unlawful. A lawfully defeated president in the White House refusing to leave because conspiracy bullshit isn’t going to be able to convince the military to spot him a bacon and egg roll, let alone throw their support behind him.

The orders wouldn't be unlawful if the president THEY VOTED FOR AND BELIEVE, tells them the election was fraudulent. Until the courts sort it out, the president will STILL be their commander in chief. In addition, Trump replaces the generals who do not comply, so they will be receiving orders from their pro Trump generals as well.

 

[Terminal Blue]

This is the logical outcome for the type of people energised by the type of rhetoric the late conservatives are indulging in. They're obsessed with an idolised masculinity, war and fighting, they only see things through such lens.

There's a word for that, as it applies to the political sphere.

 

[Gordon_4]

The orders wouldn't be unlawful if the president THEY VOTED FOR AND BELIEVE, tells them the election was fraudulent. Until the courts sort it out, the president will STILL be their commander in chief. In addition, Trump replaces the generals who do not comply, so they will be receiving orders from their pro Trump generals as well.

Jesus Christ, you have officially crossed into tin hat territory.

 

[Thaluikhain]

While I most strongly disagree with lil devil X that a bunch of veterans, even in large numbers and with lots of money, could take on the US military, I also strongly disagree that the US constitution is going to stop people. People, not excluding members of the US military, ignore or radically interpret it when convenient quite often.

Also, as well as the US military opposing or aiding an insurrection, (or rather bits and pieces of the US military opposing or aiding 2 dozen armed groups), I'd not be surprised if various armed groups attacked this or that, and the authorities just didn't get round to doing anything. As long as it's not interfering directly with the government, well, what's a year's worth of a districts murder's happening in one weekend if you don't care about the district's murder's anyway?

 

[Agema]

The orders wouldn't be unlawful if the president THEY VOTED FOR AND BELIEVE, tells them the election was fraudulent. Until the courts sort it out, the president will STILL be their commander in chief. In addition, Trump replaces the generals who do not comply, so they will be receiving orders from their pro Trump generals as well.

No, it's not going to be that simple.

If the election is contested, the generals will almost certainly refuse orders from Trump regarding domestic action. They'll do things like communicate with other high ranking politicians in the executive and - in this case particularly - legislature, and wait for political and legal resolution.

The laws technically may state they take orders from the president, but in practice they will not do so on these sorts of domestic issues with supporting justification from the wider system. Unless they plan on taking over themselves and forming a military junta.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The orders wouldn't be unlawful if the president THEY VOTED FOR AND BELIEVE, tells them the election was fraudulent. Until the courts sort it out, the president will STILL be their commander in chief. In addition, Trump replaces the generals who do not comply, so they will be receiving orders from their pro Trump generals as well.

Look, here's the thing.

I think you are very right to be worried about fascism in the US. I think anyone who has seriously examined the rise of fascism in the early 20th century is going to inevitably draw some alarming parallels to the age we live in.

But I don't think Trump installing a dictatorship aided by a bunch of paramilitary dickheads and LARP Nazis is seriously likely. Sure, if Trump loses he might try to discredit the election and make some gestures towards refusing, but only to force the democrats to show the inadequacy of their response (and out of petulance). Some LARPers might get fired up enough to carry out acts of violence or terrorism, but the smart fascists in the Trump campaign will take the win. They have shifted the Overton window ridiculously to the right, they have deeply divided the country and created a political crisis which they can continue to exploit for decades, they have eroded faith in liberal institutions, they have created an era in which cults of personality will determine political fortunes. If they lose this election, they will win another one later with another populist candidate, and when they do they will continue the process of slowly dismantling democracy.

 

[lil devils x]

Jesus Christ, you have officially crossed into tin hat territory.

How so, how many generals has he gone through already? He has already been proposing using the military on protests:

Trump plans to use active-duty military forces to deal with growing protests

The president said the extra forces are needed to deal with increasingly violent actors in major cities.

www.militarytimes.com

Trump NOT ordering the military to do anything about his pumped up pro Trump militias, containing US Military and police isn't in the realm of Tin hat here.

Don't try to twist the argument. Your first response to me pointing out how much the US military would trounce them was to talk about Zetas in your neighborhood and how civilians can own military equipment. You stated that some of them are in the military in your first post, but never once used the argument that that means they could control parts of it (something I also made provisions for in my first post, but you didn't bother to address). When I followed up by pointing out how none of that matters, you went with "they can get all the stuff and skills necessary" and after that went with "but they are backed by politicians!" and now with "they are the US military and Trump".

You've been sliding your arguments since the second reply to me and it is plain to see if you look at our posting history in this thread.

Please show me where I specifically EVER stated they woulkd be vs Us Military. GO ahead. Me not addressing it doesn't mean I once ever thought that. Let's Review shall we:
Reply1) you tell me not to worry about comparing them to the Zetas, US Militias can't obtain anything to worry about and they wouldn't know how to use it. I counter stating the cartels get whatever they want and US militias with this type of makeup can obtain whatever they want and can . Nope, no Them VS US Military anywhere to be seen there either.
reply2) Then I respond to SupahEwok stating they can get whatever they want.
reply3) You then go on again about them not being able to obtain stuff thinking I do not fully understand, when I do 100% completely understand they can obtain whatever they want. and they are active US military as well. Not even a hint of them VS US Military anywhere to be seen there either. Nope. go re read it for yourself. Me saying they can get what they want, recruit who they need to do whatever they need to accomplish AND stating they are active US military as well is in no way saying they would be fighting US military or implying such. That being in your head at all is all on you, as that never even entered my mind. Why would it?
reply4)Replied to supahewok again stating they can get whatever they want, and recruit whoever they want. Never once did I say them vs US military.
reply5)I keep telling you they can get what they want, you still insisting they cannot. You seem to not understand that the zetas were working WITH military, and that is what I am trying to tell you the militias is as well but I guess that hasn't sunk in yet.
reply6) I try to clarify this so you get the idea out of your head once and for all that the militia would not be fighting US military at all, they would be working with active members of the military and US GOP officials to get what they want. The Militas fight as never been with the military, they made it clear in the OP their plan is to fight urban liberals" not the US military.
reply7) You tell me the oath isn't to the president when it is, then I STILL try to clarify that they wouldn't be fighting the US military. It is like how many times do I have to repeat that for it to sink in for you to actually get it? The president is the commander and chief of the military, they will follow his orders. He can use them to clear protesters and he can tell them to stand down and not attack militias as well. Trump , as the president can claim the election was fraudulent and he will remain the commander in chief of the US military UNTIL the courts sort it out. You are proposing that we have a military coup to undermine that. Until the courts rule one way or another Trump is still legally president. Their orders WOULD NOT BE UNLAWFUL. The president is within his rights to command the military until the supreme court deems otherwise. I am not even sure why you would think it unlawful, that is not how US law even works.
reply8) Then you tell me I twisted something when you were the only one who had it twisted in your head here. I was not in any way saying the US military would fight the militias, and and I am not sure how you twisted it to think that. They wouldn't even need to fight the US military to even take the local armories. They have like one or two people there at most and they could just have their militia infiltrate it and let them in regardless. The local cops are who handle it when people try to break into those. That is why that plumber managed to steal a tank that time remember? He didn't even have to fight anyone for that either. Maybe you thought these things were more secure than they are or something..

1995 San Diego tank rampage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reply9)I tell Gordon it would not be an unlawful order for Trump to retain command of the military until Trumps appointed courts sort out " the fraudulent election" claim by Trump, keeping in mind that Trump is STILL IN COMMAND OF THE MILITARY ON ELECTION DAY REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS. He doesn't actually leave office until January. Trump can order his military to do whatever he wants until then, of course within the bounds, but he still has a lot of bounds and Trump doesn't need permission from anyone to command his military.. He can have them guard cities, quell protests, or stand back and await instruction to allow militia groups such as this to do what they want as well. It is not an unlawful order, and this isn't even the first time in our Military history that the troops could be used against the people. I really was thinking about him just ordering the military to stand down, but our history has proven they can be used much worse at will really, afterall, we had Bloody Sunday.

Military already knows they could be used against protesters if Trump wants..

Selma to Montgomery marches - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump plans to use active-duty military forces to deal with growing protests

The president said the extra forces are needed to deal with increasingly violent actors in major cities.

www.militarytimes.com

Loophole in law governing American military use on U.S. soil raises concerns

Sen. Tom Udall is pushing legislation to update the Posse Comitatus Act to include more activated Guard members.

www.militarytimes.com

5 times U.S. presidents deployed the military domestically

President Donald Trump wants military assistance along the U.S.-Mexico border. It wouldn’t be the first time a U.S. president has deployed the military domestically.

www.pbs.org

Reply10 THIS. And I have no idea why ANYONE thinks I said that the militia would be fighting the US MIlitary in the first place. LOL

 

[lil devils x]

While I most strongly disagree with lil devil X that a bunch of veterans, even in large numbers and with lots of money, could take on the US military, I also strongly disagree that the US constitution is going to stop people. People, not excluding members of the US military, ignore or radically interpret it when convenient quite often.

Also, as well as the US military opposing or aiding an insurrection, (or rather bits and pieces of the US military opposing or aiding 2 dozen armed groups), I'd not be surprised if various armed groups attacked this or that, and the authorities just didn't get round to doing anything. As long as it's not interfering directly with the government, well, what's a year's worth of a districts murder's happening in one weekend if you don't care about the district's murder's anyway?

Oh you do do you? Can you please show me where I ever said the militia would be fighting the US military. OH yea.. I didn't, nor did I imply it, not even once. This is getting to the point of being ridiculous tbh.
Lets see:
Lil: This entire Thread, repeatedly and consistently, Militia has access to Military resources because they have US military and those controlling US military on their side.
Geth: starts talking about militia vs US military ( I have no idea why tbh)
LIL: IT WAS NOT NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN MILITIA VS US MILITARY
Others randomly chiming in: Lil is crazy for thinking militia could take on US Military.
LIL: WTH is wrong with everyone today?!

 

[stroopwafel]

Do you know what a former soldier with a rifle is? A civilian with a rifle. Doesn't matter how much they were trained to be a former special forces operator (and I can almost guarantee that most of the people who claim to be former SF are not), without all the support assets of an actual military force they are just a bunch of irregulars that can't pose a serious threat to a modern military. To be an effective fighting force you need more then just some dudes with weapon training and auto fire converted AR-15s. You need logistics, communication, effective chain of command and if you want to be a modern fighting force you need a whole lot of specialized equipment that a civilian, no matter how eager and willing, can get (encrypted military radios, MRAPs/IFVs, armed drones, mortars, artillery tubes, anti armor weapons, attack helicopters etc.). Unless these guys can somehow get at least one full US Army or Marine division to turn on the USA and bring all its equipment along, they will get absolutely nowhere in an attempt to face down the US military in an insurgency or revolution.

I disagree with this. The best example is probably the civil war in Iraq. The U.S. military was never able to put down the insurgency exactly because it was irregular. Or asymmetric as it was called in those days. Insurgents are also able to regroup, keep quiet and flare up at any given moment. It is why the insurgency flared up again in Syria as ISIS and continued as it's own 'state'. Even U.S. army generals were impressed with how well coordinated they were. They were only defeated because they didn't have any anti-air artillery and coalitian and Russian jets bombed the shit out of them. But imagine all the tremendous damage that preceded it and the reluctance to intervene and the subsequent geopolitical implications(divided Europe, reluctant U.S., assertive Russia, chemical attacks by the Syrian regime, fallout in international relations). It is well known the organization had some high ranking generals of former Mukhbarat(Iraqi secret service) under Al Qaida in Iraq and Levant and later ISIS. And it's like a plague they are still now regrouping elsewhere. Afghanistan is a similar quagmire. In asymmetric warfare you don't have to 'win' you just have to demoralize the enemy. Which is inevatible with mounting losses and no clear military objective. Even the European refugee crisis can be traced back to the time when some jihadis said ''fuck it'' in 2003 and took up arms. They might not 'win' in the traditional sense but their potential for chaos and severe destabilization is enormous. You can't solve that with military force. It's for that reason Afganistan have always been called ''the graveyard of empires''.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is getting to the point of being ridiculous tbh.

Strongly agree with that.

I disagree with this. The best example is probably the civil war in Iraq. The U.S. military was never able to put down the insurgency exactly because it was irregular. Or asymmetric as it was called in those days. Insurgents are also able to regroup, keep quiet and flare up at any given moment. It is why the insurgency flared up again in Syria as ISIS and continued as it's own 'state'. Even U.S. army generals were impressed with how well coordinated they were. They were only defeated because they didn't have any anti-air artillery and coalitian and Russian jets bombed the shit out of them. But imagine all the tremendous damage that preceded it and the reluctance to intervene and the subsequent geopolitical implications(divided Europe, reluctant U.S., assertive Russia, chemical attacks by the Syrian regime, fallout in international relations). It is well known the organization had some high ranking generals of former Mukhbarat(Iraqi secret service) under Al Qaida in Iraq and Levant and later ISIS. And it's like a plague they are still now regrouping elsewhere. Afghanistan is a similar quagmire. In asymmetric warfare you don't have to 'win' you just have to demoralize the enemy. Which is inevatible with mounting losses and no clear military objective. Even the European refugee crisis can be traced back to the time when some jihadis said ''fuck it'' in 2003 and took up arms. They might not 'win' in the traditional sense but their potential for chaos and severe destabilization is enormous. You can't solve that with military force. It's for that reason Afganistan have always been called ''the graveyard of empires''.

Yes and no.

In Iraq, in Afghanistan (a few times), in Vietnam and a number of other places, an insurgency was able to defeat a better military that had occupied or invaded it.

But "defeat" in context, means the leaders/people of the invader/occupiers look at a long war, fail to find the country on a map and wonder if it's worth it. The US could have just not invaded Iraq to begin with, there was no pressing need to do so, no advantage to be gained and no (actual, important) threat to be removed.

This, of course, doesn't apply to an insurgency in the US itself, things would be somewhat different.

 

[lil devils x]

Look, here's the thing.

I think you are very right to be worried about fascism in the US. I think anyone who has seriously examined the rise of fascism in the early 20th century is going to inevitably draw some alarming parallels to the age we live in.

But I don't think Trump installing a dictatorship aided by a bunch of paramilitary dickheads and LARP Nazis is seriously likely. Sure, if Trump loses he might try to discredit the election and make some gestures towards refusing, but only to force the democrats to show the inadequacy of their response (and out of petulance). Some LARPers might get fired up enough to carry out acts of violence or terrorism, but the smart fascists in the Trump campaign will take the win. They have shifted the Overton window ridiculously to the right, they have deeply divided the country and created a political crisis which they can continue to exploit for decades, they have eroded faith in liberal institutions, they have created an era in which cults of personality will determine political fortunes. If they lose this election, they will win another one later with another populist candidate, and when they do they will continue the process of slowly dismantling democracy.

How are they going to remove him from the White House if he refuses to leave? I think the ONLY person in the US that can arrest the President is the sergeant of arms from the US Senate, BUT if the GOP control the senate, will they even order him to do so?

Remember when people kept saying they were worried about the president refusing to leave office? I thought NO WAY! That's madness. Then Trump said what he has said, and we hear his white house has been preparing for exactly that.. then I am like .. :s maybe they were right here and that wasn't as crazy as I had thought. If the sitting president of the United States refuses to accept the election was fair and claims it was fraudulent, the constitution doesn't tell us how to handle it. It would be decided by Trumps supreme court in the end. Until that happens, Trump would remain in office and commander of the Military.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If the sitting president of the United States refuses to accept the election was fair and claims it was fraudulent, the constitution doesn't tell us how to handle it. It would be decided by Trumps supreme court in the end. Until that happens, Trump would remain in office and commander of the Military.

Surely it's easy for him to win by cheating the ordinary way rather than wait until he loses and cheating extraordinarily?

 

[stroopwafel]

Strongly agree with that.



Yes and no.

In Iraq, in Afghanistan (a few times), in Vietnam and a number of other places, an insurgency was able to defeat a better military that had occupied or invaded it.

But "defeat" in context, means the leaders/people of the invader/occupiers look at a long war, fail to find the country on a map and wonder if it's worth it. The US could have just not invaded Iraq to begin with, there was no pressing need to do so, no advantage to be gained and no (actual, important) threat to be removed.

This, of course, doesn't apply to an insurgency in the US itself, things would be somewhat different.

True, but before that happens there will be institutional breakdown and lawlesness and many will have lost their lives. When the insurgency in Iraq happened and the judicial systems collapsed there were wave after waves of revenge killings. It will not be the same country afterwards. It will no longer be a union but most likely a viceroy of sorts under military control.

 

[lil devils x]

Surely it's easy for him to win by cheating the ordinary way rather than wait until he loses and cheating extraordinarily?

Who knows what goes on in that mans head sometimes. I mean he has given the military a heads up they could be used to " dominate the streets" so there really is no telling at this point what he has in mind.

 

[lil devils x]

Strongly agree with that.

To be clear, According to the OP they said they are preparing to fight Urban Liberals and anyone trying to impose the green new deal onto them so, I was thinking they would be more like the evil people who massacred Black wall Street and took planes and other military equipment and bombed the city there and then no one was ever even prosecuted for it happening. I was thinking these guys would likely be defensive if nothing else, but very well could attack a liberal city and it would be up to local police to handle unless Trump specifically ordered military intervention, but he wouldn't do so due to because they are HIS supporters.

I am not even sure why actually fighting the US military came up considering they ARE Members of US military and police in the first place.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED