Trump doesn’t have the resources and logistics necessary to even deport all of the undocumented immigrants, much less natural born citizens. So I highly doubt that he would go there, rather than going after the low hanging fruit. Some citizens will probably be caught up in the mix and have to go through bureaucratic hell trying to prove their status, but I don’t see him going through the major effort it would take to rewrite citizenship. Maybe in 5-10 years but not in this term.
He’ll have the military, which is all he needs. Especially once he decides “shoot on sight” is easier than deportation. Just kill anyone brown.
About 40% of the military IS brown, you lunatic.
And the Trumpites are already talking about all the people they are going to kick out of the military. Even assuming that they wouldn’t kill people with the same skin color - which I doubt - they’d just be purged with the rest. This is race war, and they are the enemy; they’ll be gotten around to sooner or later.
forget it, Jake, it’s trihstown.
I’m not quite as pessimistic as Der Trihs, but I’m also not reassured at all by the fact that there are minorities in the military.
Tens of millions of brown people voted for Trump after “They are eating the dawgs” and the RNC Nuremberg rally. And the military leans more right than the general public.
I don’t see any possibility at all of brown people in the military suddenly noticing that they are working with the leopards to round up people who look just like them.
So let me see if I have your reasoning correctly here. As long as I throw an “and/or” into a sentence, I can put a false statement and a true statement together and then claim that the sentence as a whole is technically true.
Let me try: Donald Trump made his fortune producing child pornography and/or developing real estate.
Would you agree this sentence is true?
The part about killing anyone who is brown is just stupid, as pointed out by @Smapti in the post following yours (and shame on you for making me agree with him.)
I guarantee that the military won’t obey illegal orders such as rounding up civilians within US borders. The US military has a long tradition of NOT being political or conducting non-humanitarian missions within US borders. The Pentagon has been workshopping ways to respond if (when) Cheeto Mussolini issues illegal orders. Active duty personnel get regular seminars on not obeying illegal orders. As per Military Times, a study was done which found that active duty personnel are very little affected by radical politics, although discharged veterans do have such problems.
Meanwhile in real life military forces are typically quite happy to ignore the law if ordered. And once the present military command has been fired and replaced with Trump cultists they’ll be even more willing.
Gonna start calling you “Goose”, because you only perceive your own dizzy little world.
You realize you’re not the only person peddling this birth certificate nonsense, right? You aren’t the only person in this conversation.
Do they? I don’t recall any myself, except as part of my college course on leadership and ethics (right next to “don’t lie to inspectors” and “don’t falsify records”, both of which happen… all the time, often under orders).
What I do remember is, as part of my JPME I qualification, reading guidance that stated, in essence “all orders issued by the National Command Authority are presumed to be lawful.” The NCA being the President and the Secretary of Defense (and to recap, the current pick is a white supremacist Fox “News” host with Christian nationalist tattoos).
So… yeah. Not holding my breath that the military will act as a bastion against Trump once he purges the first round of general or flag officers to offer even the slightest push back. He’s learned his lesson from his first term in office: tell the Milleys in the office to STFU or else stand by to be cashiered and replaced by someone else. Wash, rinse, repeat until he lands on someone willing to do his bidding.
You might try a statement that is at least partly true.
So now your argument is that I said things that other people said.
You are not the only person in this thread. Not everything that I say is directed to you and you alone. Get the fuck over yourself. If you want to pretend you never said what you said, then feel free to fuck off, but don’t go insisting that nobody else said anything similar.
I would really like some links showing either or both of these statements to be true.
Here’s one of them. it’s not as solid as suggested, but it’s something, anyway.
From that site: "Trump has suggested he would be open to using active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement and mass deportations and has indicated he wants to stack the federal government with loyalists and “clean out corrupt actors” in the US national security establishment.
Officials are now gaming out various scenarios as they prepare for an overhaul of the Pentagon.
“We are all preparing and planning for the worst-case scenario, but the reality is that we don’t know how this is going to play out yet,” one defense official said.
Trump’s election has also raised questions inside the Pentagon about what would happen if the president issued an unlawful order, particularly if his political appointees inside the department don’t push back.
“Troops are compelled by law to disobey unlawful orders,” said another defense official. “But the question is what happens then – do we see resignations from senior military leaders? Or would they view that as abandoning their people?”
Not very reassuring at all, is it?
This is a message board, Smapti. Everything that people have said is right here for people to read. Which is what’s making it hard for you when you try to bullshit your way out of this.
I haven’t been talking about the things you said to other people. I’ve been talking about the things you said specifically to me.
That’s you, quoting my post and responding to my post.
And here’s my response.
Now you could have said something at this point like “You’re right, Nemo, you didn’t say that. Other people said that and I got confused about who said what.”
But you didn’t.
So I pointed out again that I hadn’t said what you were claiming I had said.
Once again, you refused to admit you were wrong. You now tried to claim I was editing posts. (To avoid you making this claim again, I have quoted all of these posts in full.)
You emphasized the “and/or” in your response, so I addressed that.
I want you to notice something, Smapti. This was entirely a one-on-one conversation between you and me.
But here was your response.
If you we’re also arguing with Monty and Zyada and Horatius, I had nothing to do with that. If they wanted to respond to whatever accusations you were directing at them, they could so so. I was only responding to the accusations you were directing at me.
Which is why I said.
Now everyone’s all caught up, including you. Do you want to continue this? Or are you hoping I will choose to
Because I’m standing by what I’ve said.
I’m really getting tired with the arguing about arguing.