CanucksCorner.com Forums

Sounds like Cuz had 2-3 bubble teas in this Portlandia establishment... sucking out the pearls through some big straws.

Cornuck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:23 pm Keep in mind that the National Guard and active duty military are two different things.

Sending in the military for, quote, "training grounds" is not something a normal government would do. Which is what 5th was asking.

They've already sent the National Guard into DC, and they did nothing of value. They sent to LA and 'protected' the federal building (how much did that cost?)

None of this is normal. If the feds really wanted to help local authorities fight crime, they would give them more resources, or have the FBI assist with more backup, and not diverting FBI (and other agencies) to "immigration". Why did DHS get such a HUGE increase in their budget? A cynic might say to build more private prisons.

Anyways - these are not normal times, and I haven't seen any concrete plans to fight crime - just threats to Democratic-run states and cities.

Ahhh, I didn't realize this was in regards to regular military. I had only seen stuff about the National Guard.

Cornuck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:23 pm Keep in mind that the National Guard and active duty military are two different things.

Sending in the military for, quote, "training grounds" is not something a normal government would do. Which is what 5th was asking.

They've already sent the National Guard into DC, and they did nothing of value. They sent to LA and 'protected' the federal building (how much did that cost?)

None of this is normal. If the feds really wanted to help local authorities fight crime, they would give them more resources, or have the FBI assist with more backup, and not diverting FBI (and other agencies) to "immigration". Why did DHS get such a HUGE increase in their budget? A cynic might say to build more private prisons.

Anyways - these are not normal times, and I haven't seen any concrete plans to fight crime - just threats to Democratic-run states and cities.

Every police officer I know, and there are many, say the answer is not in more boots on the ground for them. It is in the courts and the federal and provincial governments upholding the current laws and enforcing consequences rather than paroling and dismissing, and outright condoning, the actions of criminals.

Now, obviously I'm in Canada, and the subject of this is Stateside.....however, it won't be much different, particularly in Blue states.

There are also laws in place that handcuff what police can do, and if they go "too far" in the enforcement of the law, then at best a case gets tossed, and at worst the police are found culpable of brutality.

Another thing to consider.....

Police don't have the training to endure hardship that military members go through. They are not drilled endlessly into following orders at all costs. Military members can, and will, stand their ground and tolerate all forms of abuse (short of actual physical assault) without retaliating for longer than regular law enforcement. So using them to guard federal properties and personnel is probably more effective.

The check in my head on this is that deploying them in this manner could have the effect of slowly getting the general populace to a place where they find soldiers on their streets a normal thing.....that could open a door to a more authoritarian society, and nobody will have noticed it happening.

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm
Every police officer I know, and there are many, say the answer is not in more boots on the ground for them. It is in the courts and the federal and provincial governments upholding the current laws and enforcing consequences rather than paroling and dismissing, and outright condoning, the actions of criminals.

I agree that the 'infrastructure' needs to be improved dramatically - but that's not an easy sell compared to "More boots on the ground!".

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:27 pm

2Fingers wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:58 pm

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:35 pm I was in Portland years ago and made the mistake to ask a dude walking by what DT bar had all the hot chicks.

The fucker sent me to some gay bar. It took like 2-3 drinks to figure out those "chicks" had protruding Adams apples and big hands lol

Fucker

so, don't leave us hanging, did you still get lucky?

Reefer you dog!

That's a resounding yes in my books.

Were they/was he chubby too?

Cornuck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:36 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm
Every police officer I know, and there are many, say the answer is not in more boots on the ground for them. It is in the courts and the federal and provincial governments upholding the current laws and enforcing consequences rather than paroling and dismissing, and outright condoning, the actions of criminals.

I agree that the 'infrastructure' needs to be improved dramatically - but that's not an easy sell compared to "More boots on the ground!".

Isn’t Trump “trimming the fat” regarding “infrastructure”jobs? Don’t see that happening under his watch. Trump thinks ICE is the answer instead of “due process” cause we have all learned [mod edit - Dude, dial it back...]

The dude is starting to rev er up eh haha!

Oh yes I played grab the tree trunk in Porkland Organ



Mofos!

Chef Boi RD wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 4:15 pm

Cornuck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:36 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm
Every police officer I know, and there are many, say the answer is not in more boots on the ground for them. It is in the courts and the federal and provincial governments upholding the current laws and enforcing consequences rather than paroling and dismissing, and outright condoning, the actions of criminals.

I agree that the 'infrastructure' needs to be improved dramatically - but that's not an easy sell compared to "More boots on the ground!".

Isn’t Trump “trimming the fat” regarding “infrastructure”jobs? Don’t see that happening under his watch. Trump thinks ICE is the answer instead of “due process” cause we have all learned [mod edit - Dude, dial it back...]

All good, Corn, Chef can take the insults. Seems to be open season.

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm The check in my head on this is that deploying them in this manner could have the effect of slowly getting the general populace to a place where they find soldiers on their streets a normal thing.....that could open a door to a more authoritarian society, and nobody will have noticed it happening.

The check on this is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it illegal for federal armed forces to participate in civilian law enforcement unless authorized by the Constitution or by Congress through specific legislation.

This includes federalised National Guard forces.

It's amazing that conservatives are allowing all of this.

Yup, even his own team knows he’s unhinged

MADELEINE DEAN: The president is unhinged. He is unwell.

MIKE JOHNSON: A lot of folks on your side are too

DEAN: Oh my god, please. That performance in front of the generals?

MIKE JOHNSON: I didn't see it

DEAN: It's so dangerous! Our allies are looking elsewhere. Our enemies are laughing. You have a president who is unwell.

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1973548233566679313

General Mark Milley. “We don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution...

...and we're willing to die to protect it.”

Cornuck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:23 pm Keep in mind that the National Guard and active duty military are two different things.

Sending in the military for, quote, "training grounds" is not something a normal government would do. Which is what 5th was asking.

They've already sent the National Guard into DC, and they did nothing of value. They sent to LA and 'protected' the federal building (how much did that cost?)

None of this is normal. If the feds really wanted to help local authorities fight crime, they would give them more resources, or have the FBI assist with more backup, and not diverting FBI (and other agencies) to "immigration". Why did DHS get such a HUGE increase in their budget? A cynic might say to build more private prisons.

Anyways - these are not normal times, and I haven't seen any concrete plans to fight crime - just threats to Democratic-run states and cities.

In Sweden using military for police duty or domestic matters is illegal.

In 1931 there was a strike at a lumber mill in Ådalen that then spread to several mills in the region. One of the mill owners brought in some 60 scabs to replace the striking workers. There was a protest rally with several thousand people attending, and afterwards the protesters started marching toward the mill. The centre-right government we had at the time had sent in the military to control the crowds, but they felt overwhelmed by such a lkarge crowd and opened fire with a machine gun at the protesters resulting in five people being killed and several wounded.

It is generally believed that this was one of the main reasons the Social Democrats came to power in the 1932 elections, and then stayed in power for 40 years. And another consequence was a ban against using the military for police purposes and/or against civilians. It also lead to teh creation of a national police force. Back in 1931 the police was county based and there was no way for the county administration to bring in other reinforcements than the military.

Ironically, the county administrative board had decided earlier that same day to prohibit the use of scabs during the strike. If that information had been known by the protesters, none of this may have happened.

Of the five people killed, four of them were striking workers and the fifth was a 20-yo female bystander.

There is a memorial for the workers at the church where they were buried which reads:

Here rests
a Swedish worker
fallen in a time of peace
unarmed defenceless
Fusilladed
by bullets unknown
The crime was hunger
Never forget him

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm The check in my head on this is that deploying them in this manner could have the effect of slowly getting the general populace to a place where they find soldiers on their streets a normal thing.....that could open a door to a more authoritarian society, and nobody will have noticed it happening.

I would assume that is exactly why it is done in the first place. Democracy gradually replaced by military rule.
Due process removed while people get rounded up by masked troopers and detained indefinitely.

donlever wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:37 pm

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 2:27 pm

2Fingers wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:58 pm

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 1:35 pm I was in Portland years ago and made the mistake to ask a dude walking by what DT bar had all the hot chicks.

The fucker sent me to some gay bar. It took like 2-3 drinks to figure out those "chicks" had protruding Adams apples and big hands lol

Fucker

so, don't leave us hanging, did you still get lucky?

Reefer you dog!

That's a resounding yes in my books.

Were they/was he chubby too?

Yes, indeed. Do tell us Cuz, what do tranny belugas really like behind a closed door (or in an alley).....

Per wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 7:58 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm The check in my head on this is that deploying them in this manner could have the effect of slowly getting the general populace to a place where they find soldiers on their streets a normal thing.....that could open a door to a more authoritarian society, and nobody will have noticed it happening.

I would assume that is exactly why it is done in the first place. Democracy gradually replaced by military rule.
Due process removed while people get rounded up by masked troopers and detained indefinitely.

Well the people have only themselves to blame for society getting to a place where a federal government could even attempt to justify the need for military intervention on a domestic level.

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 9:26 am

Per wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 7:58 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm The check in my head on this is that deploying them in this manner could have the effect of slowly getting the general populace to a place where they find soldiers on their streets a normal thing.....that could open a door to a more authoritarian society, and nobody will have noticed it happening.

I would assume that is exactly why it is done in the first place. Democracy gradually replaced by military rule.
Due process removed while people get rounded up by masked troopers and detained indefinitely.

Well the people have only themselves to blame for society getting to a place where a federal government could even attempt to justify the need for military intervention on a domestic level.

I would think a working democracy would have checks and balances to prevent this kind of slow creep into authoritarianism, regardless of what "place society is in". Besides, there are plenty of other solutions, like the National Guard (under state control), that are available. This is why the Posse Comitus act allows only very limited use of the military in domestic situations (e.g. Insurrection).

Unfortunately with the cooperation of Congress there seems to be no limit to what Trump can attempt. Checks and balances have failed entirely.