#JAILTOTHECHIEF- Shit Just Got Real

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

Yeah, those so-called militias the far right drums up are pretty pathetic.

At least they have something, unlike the left which pretty much has all its eggs in one national basket, and one that can't legally or morally be used against American targets except as a last resort.

And given that military leadership also leans hard to the right, they might refuse to execute a lawful order to engage with right-wing insurgents.

 

[Kara Spengler]

At least they have something, unlike the left which pretty much has all its eggs in one national basket, and one that can't legally or morally be used against American targets except as a last resort.

And given that military leadership also leans hard to the right, they might refuse to execute a lawful order to engage with right-wing insurgents.

Remind me if the federals or the rebels won the civil war?

The military strictly follows the constitution. They most certainly do not follow the cult of personality that passes for the Rs lately.

 

[danielravennest]

I posted a clip a day or so ago (can't remember which thread offhand) of an interview she did on an Australian channel where she was explaining that you get these word salads when he starts to say something -- an answer to a question, or just an idea that's occurred to him -- and, as happens frequently, he has no idea where he's going to end up with it, and he's desperately trying to improvise and bullshit his way through.

What you get is, in real time, his thought processes exposed as he stumbles from one vaguely associated idea to the next, until he comes up with something he thinks he can spin as halfway credible at the time he says it.

She adds his reactions as each new thought pops briefly into his head.

I think of it as the voices in his head fighting for control of his mouth.

 

[Romana]

What did Assley expect Hannity to do? Give Dump goals? Like he'd listen?

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

At least they have something, unlike the left which pretty much has all its eggs in one national basket, and one that can't legally or morally be used against American targets except as a last resort.

And given that military leadership also leans hard to the right, they might refuse to execute a lawful order to engage with right-wing insurgents.

Oh, if it came down to a civil war, there would certainly be deserters from the military ranks. But the military as a whole stands ready to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

What did Assley expect Hannity to do? Give Dump goals? Like he'd listen?

You can see him thinking, "I'm doing my best, but look at what I've got to work with."

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Oh, if it came down to a civil war, there would certainly be deserters from the military ranks. But the military as a whole stands ready to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Yes, but isn't it pretty much the definition of a civil war that the military can't agree on who is the legitimate government?

 

[Kara Spengler]

Yes, but isn't it pretty much the definition of a civil war that the military can't agree on who is the legitimate government?

Not really. The obvious comparison would be our previous civil war. The confederacy broke away, formed their own government, used a different name for it, and so on. It was pretty clear there was only one legitimate government if your oath was to the USA and the constitution of it.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Not really. The obvious comparison would be our previous civil war. The confederacy broke away, formed their own government, used a different name for it, and so on. It was pretty clear there was only one legitimate government if your oath was to the USA and the constitution of it.

The difference was that I think before the Civil War, there were also oaths to your state's government?

 

[Free]

What did Assley expect Hannity to do? Give Dump goals? Like he'd listen?

He hitched his wagon to a horse with no brain. Not much more to say.

 

[Kara Spengler]

The difference was that I think before the Civil War, there were also oaths to your state's government?

Did not realize that but now you only have the oath to the us.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Not really. The obvious comparison would be our previous civil war. The confederacy broke away, formed their own government, used a different name for it, and so on. It was pretty clear there was only one legitimate government if your oath was to the USA and the constitution of it.

Yes, which meant that the forces fighting for the Confederacy thought the legitimate government of their states was based in Richmond and that their President was Jefferson Davis, while those fighting for the Union thought those states' legitimate government was based in Washington DC.

As I understand it, the cededing states' legal theory, as originally developed by John C. Calhoun some years earlier, was that the federal government, by refusing to recognise slavery in the new western states, was abandoning the constitution by preventing citizens of slave-holding states from transferring their property (i.e. slaves) from one part of the US to another, and thus denying them the opportunity to claim some of the former native-owned lands on the same basis as citizens of northern free states (because they couldn't take their property with them to clear and work the land).

 

[Innula Zenovka]

His allies are deserting him.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Yes, which meant that the forces fighting for the Confederacy thought the legitimate government of their states was based in Richmond and that their President was Jefferson Davis, while those fighting for the Union thought those states' legitimate government was based in Washington DC.

As I understand it, the cededing states' legal theory, as originally developed by John C. Calhoun some years earlier, was that the federal government, by refusing to recognise slavery in the new western states, was abandoning the constitution by preventing citizens of slave-holding states from transferring their property (i.e. slaves) from one part of the US to another, and thus denying them the opportunity to claim some of the former native-owned lands on the same basis as citizens of northern free states (because they couldn't take their property with them to clear and work the land).

Right now the military is not tied to states at all though. If you are saying the definition of a civil war is a difference in what the legitimate govt is what would a war in the us like the 19th century civil war be called? Since we know what our civil war was people would still call it some variation of the second civil war even if it should be technically be called something else.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

Remind me if the federals or the rebels won the civil war?

The military strictly follows the constitution. They most certainly do not follow the cult of personality that passes for the Rs lately.

Sorry, lemme back up. I don't think civil war is at all likely. A few groups might decide to attack the government if they feel it's too leftist but that's more a matter for law enforcement. Unless they're completely overwhelmed and as a last resort, the armed forces are sent in to assist. But that would be as a 'policing action' not necessarily a 'war'.

But I simply don't see that as being likely. Right-wing vigilantees (mercs, survivalists, 2nd-amendment-fetishests, off-duty-cops, reservists, etc) are more likely to furtively target individuals and communities, not government establishments and leadership. A few individuals or small groups may try but that's hardly a 'civil war' basis.

And the left? Where are we going to conscript a fighting force from? So if we do get targetted, we're at the mercy of police departments that are staffed with officers that generally aren't very sympathetic with our party.

Too imbalanced and decentralized in either case for it to resemble an actual 'civil war' imho.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Sorry, lemme back up. I don't think civil war is at all likely. A few groups might decide to attack the government if they feel it's too leftist but that's more a matter for law enforcement. Unless they're completely overwhelmed and as a last resort, the armed forces are sent in to assist. But that would be as a 'policing action' not necessarily a 'war'.

But I simply don't see that as being likely. Right-wing vigilantees (mercs, survivalists, 2nd-amendment-fetishests, off-duty-cops, reservists, etc) are more likely to furtively target individuals and communities, not government establishments and leadership. A few individuals or small groups may try but that's hardly a 'civil war' basis.

And the left? Where are we going to conscript a fighting force from? So if we do get targetted, we're at the mercy of police departments that are staffed with officers that generally aren't very sympathetic with our party.

Too imbalanced and decentralized in either case for it to resemble an actual 'civil war' imho.

We do not need to conscript one. We already have the military if the reich gets out of control.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

He hitched his wagon to a horse with no brain. Not much more to say.

The total disconnect between Trump's answer and H-innanity's question makes me think Trump flat out didn't hear it almost the entire question.

Likely a hearing problem or the voices in his head were talking too loud again.

 

[Jopsy Pendragon]

We do not need to conscript one. We already have the military if the reich gets out of control.

They can't choose to do it on their own and if the leadership decides not to deploy them against people they refuse to classify as 'domestic terrorists' ... then what?

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

They can't choose to do it on their own and if the leadership decides not to deploy them against people they refuse to classify as 'domestic terrorists' ... then what?

“Aleppo.” -Gary Johnson