What's new

Countdown to Trump using the military against Americans

Well, most of the time, pro Second amendment advocates, like yourself, turn to “thoughts and prayers” at times like this. My bad if you don’t believe in “thoughts and prayers”. I know you believe guns are 100% innocent, and should never, ever, enter the conversation, despite having multiple mass gun shootings on a near weekly basis.



And here is where I spot an issue I would love more information regarding. Given the ridiculous plague of mass murders via guns, in our nation, why do you suppose we truly seem, based on your conclusion it’s due to mental health issues, to have more mentally sick people in our society, than all other developed nations combined?? I mean, if you look at societies that don’t display chronic mass murders, do they have far less nuts living in their societies? If they had as many guns, would we see European nations competing for “most mass murders per population?”. I don’t know.

You see, it’s hard to look at nations where mass shootings are not chronic, where their citizens don’t kill en mass, and not think, since those nations don’t have millions of guns, that….maybe….guns are a factor in the United States. Maybe better regulation of fire arms would be more sensible than, say, assigning a mental health professional to every American, at birth? Not that the latter would be a bad idea, since we apparently have more mentally disturbed citizens than all nations on Earth combined. Run it by RFK Jr. A psychiatrist for every American!
We already have laws against murder, assault, improper handling of guns, the mentally ill owning guns, and every other crime the guy committed...But just one more gun law woulda stopped it. Or if we took guns from law abiding citizens somehow this guy would not have broke all these other laws.
Minnesota already has tough gun laws. So does Chicago, the murder capital of the USA.
Do you know that the average American has 12-19 prescriptions per person annually, and its going up every year? That is almost double most other developed countries.
Do you think the fact that most other developed countries have free health care that often includes therapy and mental healthcare might contribute to "less nuts"?
Do you think its good practice to burden overprescribed mentally ill people with prescription drug costs, treatment costs, and mental healthcare costs while also propagandizing and radicalizing them politically?


View: https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1961042436265787804
 
Last edited:
  • Heart
Reactions: PJF
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
hey retard- Minnesota has some pretty strict gun laws, but news flash criminals don't care about laws....

View: https://x.com/PecanC8/status/1961109313256292521


View: https://x.com/lpmi/status/1961113837530177913

Let me rephrase it the question I asked you. What is it, about Americans, that makes us the greatest individual mass murderers on the planet? Why our nationality? We come from many ethnicities ourselves, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, etc., etc., yet you don’t see any other nationality, people of other nations, committing mass murderers with anything resembling their frequency in the United States. Don’t say “it’s the drugs”. People have agency. And if it’s “mental illness”, why do so many mentally ill people decide “I know! A gun! A gun! I need a gun!”, in the United States, but nowhere near as many mentally ill people reaching for guns in other nations? How come?

In other words, what’s different about Americans? If we are more insane, on average, why? If way more Americans are on drugs, why does that mean they reach for guns and shoot people? En mass. There are many types of mental illness. What type of mental illness do Americans suffer from, that more such sick people decide to commit mass murder, with firearms, more than any other national group, anywhere else on Earth?

You know, there is one thing that stands out when looking for answers to those specific questions, and that specific nation, the United States. And we all actually know what that “wild card” is. It’s a specific type of weapon, and it likely outnumbers the population of that nation. Other nations are doing something right, that we are not doing, in order to see mass shootings so much more frequent in this one nation.

Mental illness is not uniquely American. So, why are mass shootings quite nearly uniquely American?
 
Do you know that the average American has 12-19 prescriptions per person annually, and its going up every year? That is almost double most other developed countries.
Do you think the fact that most other developed countries have free health care that often includes therapy and mental healthcare might contribute to "less nuts"?
Do you think its good practice to burden overprescribed mentally ill people with prescription drug costs, treatment costs, and mental healthcare costs while also propagandizing and radicalizing them politically?
I take about 12 scripts per day. For various conditions. I don’t like the fact that most primary providers resort to pushing pills, and that’s their first choice, and their last choice. Not sure when that became standard practice, but it seems to be. Drug salesman and drug pushing doctors seems to constitute much of American health care. I had an uncle who made house calls when I was a child, so my first office visit was likely a revelation. Of course, without the most important of my meds, I would be long dead by now. There is that. It is a consideration. Unless I want to die. So, I decided to take the meds.

I don’t disagree with most of what you are saying in this comment. Now, on your last point, I don’t think radicalizing mentally ill people through the agency of Trumpism will do them any good at all. We ain’t gonna agree there, but we each know that much. By coincidence, one of my best friends, who’s a Trump supporter, did recently go off his meds. He called me, begging for help, as he was growing more paranoid, and thought many people, in the government no less, were trying to control his mind. Sometimes, you do need those meds, and I basically got him to reverse his decision, and he’s feeling better.

Yes, universal health care is needed. And of course easy and free access to mental health care and counseling is bound to help.

None of this, however, really comes close to answering why so many mass shootings in this country, and not others. Although I cannot disagree that if more people capable of committing mass shootings had easily available mental health care available, and such health care was actively promoted, to the same degree the upteenth tv drug ad recommends a certain drug, while warning about side effects worse than the condition being treated, it would help to an extent. Also does not help that mental illness is still stigmatized in this country.
 
That’s not what I asked you. Let me rephrase it: what is it, about Americans, that makes us the greatest individual mass murderers on the planet? Why our nationality? We come from many ethnicities ourselves, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, etc., etc., yet you don’t see any other nationality, people of other nations, committing mass murderers with anything resembling their frequency in the United States. Don’t say “it’s the drugs”. People have agency. And if it’s “mental illness”, why do so many mentally ill people decide “I know! A gun! A gun! I need a gun!”, in the United States, but nowhere near as many mentally ill people reaching for guns in other nations? How come?

In other words, what’s different about Americans? If we are more insane, on average, why? If way more Americans are on drugs, why does that mean they reach for guns and shoot people? En mass. There are many types of mental illness. What type of mental illness do Americans suffer from, that more such sick people decide to commit mass murder, with firearms, more than any other national group, anywhere else on Earth?

You know, there is one thing that stands out when looking for answers to those specific questions, and that specific nation, the United States. And we all actually know what that “wild card” is. It’s a specific type of weapon, and it likely outnumbers the population of that nation. Other nations are doing something right, that we are not doing, in order to see mass shootings so much more frequent in this one nation.

Mental illness is not uniquely American. So, why are mass shootings quite nearly uniquely American?
I know you want to respond when I say "hey retard" but this wasn't my response to you. I clearly responded to you already directly. I guess you just want to ignore that? Are you one of those Americans taking 20+ prescriptions that doesn't see it as a problem even though you are terrified of the thought you might not need them all? Why do so many mentally ill people decide, "I know, drugs, drugs, I need more drugs!"
You can respond to my questions I posed to you directly, or just admit you are a gun hating liberal moron that doesn't want to look any deeper at the issue.

We already have laws against murder, assault, improper handling of guns, the mentally ill owning guns, and every other crime the guy committed...But just one more gun law woulda stopped it. Or if we took guns from law abiding citizens somehow this guy would not have broke all these other laws.
Minnesota already has tough gun laws. So does Chicago, the murder capital of the USA.
Do you know that the average American has 12-19 prescriptions per person annually, and its going up every year? That is almost double most other developed countries.
Do you think the fact that most other developed countries have free health care that often includes therapy and mental healthcare might contribute to "less nuts"?
Do you think its good practice to burden overprescribed mentally ill people with prescription drug costs, treatment costs, and mental healthcare costs while also propagandizing and radicalizing them politically?


View: https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1961098297579651284
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
I take about 12 scripts per day. For various conditions. I don’t like the fact that most primary providers resort to pushing pills, and that’s their first choice, and their last choice. Not sure when that became standard practice, but it seems to be. Drug salesman and drug pushing doctors seems to constitute much of American health care. I had an uncle who made house calls when I was a child, so my first office visit was likely a revelation. Of course, without the most important of my meds, I would be long dead by now. There is that. It is a consideration. Unless I want to die. So, I decided to take the meds.

I don’t disagree with most of what you are saying in this comment. Now, on your last point, I don’t think radicalizing mentally ill people through the agency of Trumpism will do them any good at all. We ain’t gonna agree there, but we each know that much. By coincidence, one of my best friends, who’s a Trump supporter, did recently go off his meds. He called me, begging for help, as he was growing more paranoid, and thought many people, in the government no less, were trying to control his mind. Sometimes, you do need those meds, and I basically got him to reverse his decision, and he’s feeling better.

Yes, universal health care is needed. And of course easy and free access to mental health care and counseling is bound to help.

None of this, however, really comes close to answering why so many mass shootings in this country, and not others. Although I cannot disagree that if more people capable of committing mass shootings had easily available mental health care available, and such health care was actively promoted, to the same degree the upteenth tv drug ad recommends a certain drug, while warning about side effects worse than the condition being treated, it would help to an extent. Also does not help that mental illness is still stigmatized in this country.
I think you may have been propagandized on this subject and have a skewed perspective. Is 500 deaths a year a lot? Sure, but there are significantly worse problems plaguing our country. You should ask yourself why are politicians so worried about this subject and not others? What do they have to gain from getting support to ban guns in America? Why does the media always make this out to be such a significant issue? 41000 people a year die in car accidents in the US, 913,000 people in the US die every year from heart disease, 619,000 people in the US die every year from cancer, 100,000 people a year in the US die of diabetes. Why no uproar over this? These are preventable deaths too! Where is the ****ing health care uproar?

The media has many people like you believing these mass shootings are happening everywhere all the time and that every other person on the street in America is some sort of psychopath mass murderer and it isn't factual, it's propaganda. There is a very small population of mentally ill people in America getting access to guns that shouldn't have access to them and the bias and corrupt media blows these stories up every single time.

The U.S. has the highest number of mass shootings globally, but the number of deaths varies by definition:
  • Gun Violence Archive (GVA): Defines a mass shooting as an incident where four or more people are shot (injured or killed), excluding the shooter, at the same general time and location. In 2021, GVA reported 706 deaths from mass shootings.


    1756414976820.png
    • In 2023, GVA recorded 503 mass shootings, with an estimated 600–700 deaths based on trends (exact death tolls vary as data is updated).


      1756414976828.png
  • FBI Definition: Defines an "active shooter incident" as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill in a populated area. In 2021, the FBI reported 103 deaths (excluding perpetrators) from such incidents.


    1756414976836.png
    • In 2023, the FBI reported 105 deaths from active shooter incidents.


      1756414976842.png
  • Mother Jones/Statista: Defines a mass shooting as an indiscriminate rampage in a public place with three or more fatalities (excluding the shooter). As of September 4, 2024, only 8 deaths were reported from two mass shootings in the U.S. for 2024, though this is likely an undercount due to the partial year and stricter definition.


    1756414976848.png
  • Everytown Research: Notes that mass shootings (four or more killed) account for about 1% of U.S. gun deaths. With 46,728 total gun deaths in 2023, this suggests roughly 467 deaths from mass shootings annually, though this varies by year.


    1756414976853.png
Average Estimate: Depending on the definition, U.S. mass shooting deaths range from 100–700 annually, with GVA’s broader definition yielding higher counts (closer to 600–700) and stricter definitions (FBI, Mother Jones) yielding lower counts (100–200).
 
Last edited:
1e71abf547ef3547.webp
 
Pretty sure it was Douglas MacArthur who led the troops against the veterans.
And it handed FDR the presidency. However, because Americans are so prosperous and bored now and see politics as a form of entertainment and a way to hurt their fellow citizens, if the bonus army’s violent displacement happened today, republicans and their billionaire donors would overwhelmingly be happy. It would actually supercharge Hoover’s campaign and given him the boost he needed to defeat FDR. Autocrats like Mussolini and Hitler and nazi supporters like Coughlin, Lindbergh, Moran, and the Christian Front would have been galvanized. Imagine how many clicks Fox News and The NY Times could get by blaming liberals on the bonus army’s and praising Hoover for restoring law and order.

Btw, people here should read up on the Christian Front from the 1930s and 1940s. You might find many similarities between them and the Christian nationalists that own the GOP today.



 
Last edited:
We had a Newscorp organised day of action today, Sky news and the rest of the Murdoch press on the far right in combination with their political allies or the far right organised a day of protest for Australia.

There were predictable clashes with a few people arrested, 3 of the 4 main protests were captured or led by Neo nazi elements, its a great day for the country...



What the fascist adjacent do on Sundays... Oh and Nazis too
 

Trump's Military Moves Ratchet Up Threat of State-on-State Conflict​

Story by Tim Dickinson
• 9h•
5 min read


Trump's Military Moves Ratchet Up Threat of State-on-State Conflict


Trump's Military Moves Ratchet Up Threat of State-on-State Conflict


In Donald Trump's increasingly addled worldview, if he can imagine it, he has the authority to do it. "I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the president of the United States," he told reporters this week in the Oval Office, justifying his decision to deploy armed National Guard units to Washington, D.C., and his threats to send forces to Chicago and beyond. "If I think our country is in danger - and it is in danger in these cities," he said, "I can do it."

call to action icon


more

Trump is using the military to beta-test an American police state. And he is going about it in a way that could stoke conflict between military units of Republican- and Democratic-governed states, says Ret. Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who spoke to reporters on a conference call, Tuesday. "That's the scariest thing about what we're watching right now."

Trump signed a stark executive order this week directing the Pentagon to "immediately" create a special police unit inside the D.C. National Guard to enforce "public safety and order" in continued response to the "crime emergency" he's declared in the nation's capital. (Earlier this year, the federal government touted that violent crime in the district was at a three-decade low.)

But the executive order is not limited to the federal capital, where Trump wields broad powers. The order calls for building similar capacity in Guard units across the country, as well as the creation of a "standing National Guard quick reaction force" available for "rapid nationwide deployment." Trump's order anticipates Guard members "quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety."


more


Trump's move to direct the might of the U.S. military internally is raising alarms among legal scholars. "There is no statutory authority to federalize the National Guard for the purpose of policing local crime," says Liza Goitein, a national security expert at the Brennan Center, who highlighted for reporters the pernicious effects of Trump's orders. "At minimum, using soldiers as a domestic police force creates a chilling effect" - in particular, she said, for people seeking to protest "the person who commands the soldiers."

Trump's order does more than marshal the military. It envisions civilians entering the fray to enforce the president's notions of law and order. The executive order calls for the creation of an online portal where Americans with "law enforcement or other relevant backgrounds and experience" can apply to "join Federal law enforcement entities" to "support the policy goals" of the president.
call to action icon
more


The language of the order, first flagged by The New York Times, is ambiguous. Would these civilians join in a paid capacity? Or as "civilian volunteers," as the Times described it, resembling a federal posse? A White House official would not clarify beyond telling Rolling Stone that the portal hopes to attract qualified applicants who support Trump's initiative to "crackdown on crime" in D.C.

Trump's order puts a task force chaired by top White House adviser Stephen Miller in charge of the recruiting effort. Trump's most nakedly authoritarian lieutenant, Miller regularly demonizes anyone to the left of Trump's MAGA movement. In an appearance on Fox News with Sean Hannity this week, Miller described Democrats in ways that would make a demagogue blush:

"The Democrat Party is not a political party, it is a domestic extremist organization," Miller said. He peppered his diatribe with false claims that the Democratic Party does not "represent American citizens" and but is "devoted exclusively" to the "defense of hardened criminals, gang bangers and illegal-alien killers and terrorists." Miller blasted Democratic mayors as "evil," while falsely alleging they are "rejoicing in" subjecting residents to a "constant blood bath." He called Trump's militarization of the streets of the nation's capital a "liberation," declaring: "President Trump has literally set the people of Washington, D.C., free."


Strident "enemy-within" bluster is not new from the Trump administration. But advancing the notion that Trump's militarized police state ought to be turned against one of the two major political parties is harrowing - and a bright-red flag for anyone tasked with recruiting security forces.

The language of Trump's EO itself is also troubling. It can read like a dog-whistle to the right's own extremists. The ranks of the Oath Keepers, for example, are brimming with ex-military and law enforcement. As detailed in court proceedings, its leaders were waiting on an invitation from the president during the tumult of Jan. 6 to join a violent crackdown on Trump's enemies in D.C. The militia group had infamously stationed its own, armed, "quick reaction force" across the river in Virginia. These convicts are now at large after Trump's mass pardon spree.


Beyond this troubling recruiting, "the mission is the problem here," Max Rose, a former Democratic congressman from Staten Island, New York, tells Rolling Stone. "The president's intent is to scare the hell out of millions of people - principally his political opponents," Rose says. "That's why it's being done in such a public, brazen manner."

Rose, like Eaton and Goitein, was a panelist on the press call, which was organized by the Vet Voice Foundation, a group devoted to defending democratic values. Its CEO, Janessa Goldbeck, denounced Trump's "steady march" to using the military as a "partisan tool," calling the new executive order the "most dangerous step yet" by the president. "It's a blueprint to use America's military forces to police our own citizens," she said.

Several panelists on the call highlighted the danger of Trump potentially shattering precedent by deploying National Guard units from one state into another - against the will of that state's governor. "This norm has been treated as inviolable, because the alternative is blatantly unconstitutional," said Goldbeck. "Put bluntly, the Constitution prevents states from invading other states."


This invasion threat is no longer an abstraction. In a press conference this week, Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois spoke directly to "my fellow governors" who might consider sending National Guard units "into my state against the wishes of its elected representatives and its people." Pritzker spoke with a firmness that could be read as a veiled threat: "Any action … violating the sacred sovereignty of our state to cater to the ego of a dictator," he said, "will be responded to."

Retired Maj. Gen. Eaton is a Vet Voice adviser. Using military jargon, he raised the specter of a "blue-on-blue" conflict - a form of "fratricide," as he described it - in which American military units "wind up shooting at each other" when they "both believe they're doing the right thing, but their chain of command is flawed."

Eaton imagined a dangerous scenario in which a state like South Carolina or Mississippi were to deploy Guard troops to California, only to be told by the governor: "You will not enter the state of California."


"This can spin out of control if the governors feel that they are the last line of defense for the U.S. democracy," Eaton says. And America's current cold war between Republican and Democratic governed states could suddenly turn hot. "The last time America had a blue-on-blue," he cautions, "was the Civil War."


 
Back
Top