UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Unlike the Guard and Reserves.

Our Commander-in-Chief.

Is each soldier being flown by private jet and housed in a newly built, 3 bedroom condo along the border? I know the government is top-notch at pissing cash down a rathole, but your figure seems a trifle high to me.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://m.sfgate.com/politics/article/In-key-California-House-races-Republicans-are-13348696.php?t=1368369986&utm_campaign=twitter-mobile&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social

For example, he can use the Marines, which are not covered by the statute.

But, even so, posse comitatus is to limit the use of the Army to enforce domestic policies. Defense of the border, on the other hand, is the first and primary purpose of the Army. I don't see how posse comitatus applies in this case at all. Why couldn't trump order the 1st Cav to defend our border? I don't see any legal limitation on that.

Even if there were such a limitation, Trump could just use (i) the commonly accepted Eisenhower exception, which allowed him to send federal troops to enforce the desegregation laws in Little Rock, Arkansas, or (ii) the effective but illegal Clinton drug exception which Clinton used to butcher that cult in Waco (the drug allegation was later determined to be a lie by the ATF, so there are easy ways to get around posse comitatus). Bottom line, when local authorities are unable (or even unwilling) to enforce the law, the military can be used (Eisenhower), or the military can be safely used when the targeted people are sufficiently marginalized (e.g., Japanese-Americans, and perhaps immigrants but that remains to be seen).

And at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars - tax dollars.

To your first point, he would do it to enforce our immigration laws and defend our border from people seeking to cross the border without permission.

As far as "missing the point," that seems to be just another way of saying, "I don't like what you said." I commented directly on his point about posse comitatus, indicating why his "Long Live the King" comment is either wrong, or misplaced on Trump. I would think that even you can see that. But, again, perhaps I expect too much from you.

(transportation) and first aid. Nothing else. Set up barbed wire perhaps, dig some holes, set up portopoddies and so on, basically do what the parks department does here in NYC for a concert in the park.

And No, U missed the point of it all - The military can do nothing as I've posted.

You're wrong and you're wrong.

But that's how you and your guys roll.

Trumpenkreigers all of you.

Didn’t spend tax dollars like drunken sailors.

So please, stop with the BS on spending.

Neither party can pretend to care about spending. So, YOU are the one who needs to stop with the BS on spending, not me.

and under Clinton and Obama, spending was less than the previous or, under W Bush and now Trump spending is up.

Even the Wall Street Journal notes this very same phenomenon.

My post wasn't about who spends more rather, it's about why is Trump sending the US military to the southern border and to the tune of hundreds of millions. Good spending is good, wasteful is just wasteful as in, sending military troops so the Mexican border.

The point is, it's an election fear movement by Trump to sway voters next Tuesday to vote R.

You could be any dumber if you were Cole or Bovz or even Hank the Tank.

Try not to change the subject to your liking every time you don't like what's posted.

I'm trying to come with with a similar abuse of C-IN-C power. So far I have come up with nada.

(no message)

It was a horrible thing to do, but it wasn't done to help with an election.

(no message)

Link: https://fee.org/articles/special-interests-and-the-internmet-of-japanese-americans-during-world-war-ii/

Didn't mean to get in the way of your "everything is unprecedented" thesis.

The power of the president over the military. Not just any presidential abuse....in which case you would be right, Japanese internment would be worse. And lots of other stuff.

I mean a use of the military for blatantly political purposes.

Right?

If it is, no reason for me to argue further. Sure. No president has done this exact whatever thing specifically. Unprecedented!!!!

If it is not, my point stands. As bad as it is, we're a long ways from the bottom as it relates to executive power abuses. We've had worse and we survived. It's not good, but it's still a long ways from catastrophic, fascist (like FDR) or "unprecedented". One way to look at it: There is a see-saw approach to progress and this is the going down. Let's remember, for example, Obama didn't initially approve of gay marriage.

Trump has ordered troops to deploy in support of the GOP midterms.

I’m not saying this specific thing has never been done...I’m saying nothing close to it has ever been done.

Of course other presidents have abused power, in worse ways. But I can’t remember a blatant use of the military in service of politics like this before, ever.

(no message)

Presidents have never used the military for naked political purposes.

Surely you can grasp this.

I am comfortably numb. Not that I wouldn't act if I could, but given that there is nothing I could do to change it, why should I care? My only quarrel was that you think this type of behavior is new, it's not. Sure, no president has done specifically this, but so what? Other presidents have done similar, (and as you've agreed, worse) and you know what... no one stopped them either. Elections have consequences and like me, you are one of the disaffected that didn't vote for this.

But unlike you, I realize that bitching about this is counterproductive.

(no message)

(no message)

I mean, this is like slow pitching Trump with the bases loaded.

(no message)

But using your Soros claim in reverse and call it Putin is just like you to change the thread.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

1) Clinton bombing the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan one week after Lewinski story broke.
2) Reagan's Invasion of Grenada a few days after Marine barracks destroyed in Beirut.

Both followed extensive interagency reviews and NSC discussion. The timing of both was coincidental.

Although plenty of Dems probably still believe Reagan's invasion was completely political and ditto for Repubs and Clinton's cruise missile barrage.

I think an argument in this case can be made that the timing is being dictated more by the nightly news videos of the caravan moving through Mexico than by the midterms. I am not defending Trump's move to deploy troops, I'm sure it is completely unnecessary. But the guy's main platform was "We're gonna build a beautiful wall..." Not surprising that he would take this kind of action, IMO. Would have happened, midterms or no midterms.

(no message)

the question will change to, "Please tell me one time when THESE PARTICULAR TROOPS have been deployed in the service of an election."

(no message)

Don’t you remember?

And, when Holder was elected, he dropped the case against the New Black Panthers.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Hate it when that happens.

What about the Mid-Term Election Cruise Missile Strike of 1998? Just a quick thought that came to mind without any research. Clinton needed a distraction about that time...something to emphasize to the Republicans that they were playing with fire. A lot of parallels between then and now.

And before you say that strike was justified, you will know that your opponent here will say this peaceful deployment to support the law is also justified. If were just looking for a pissing match, we have those all day here. The point is that each side has its list of abuses, and each side thinks its own abuses are not actually abuses. As long as we can't see the viewpoint of the other side, things will not change.

For the record, I see your point.

(You could probably come up with dozens of instances from 1860-1890, by the way. One of the best kept secrets of history is how fast an loose Abraham Lincoln played with the Constitution.)

I was actually teaching a case study of them on the morning of 9/11/01.

There was no mention of elections in any of the deliberations that led up to the strikes. As I said above, there was an extensive interagency process that preceded them.

For the record, I think it was stupid to attack the building in Somalia, but justified to try to kill bin Laden.

(no message)

Well done.