Would the military support a Trump Coup?

[Picaro]

The Democrats and Obama were desperate to replace the military's leadership with loyal flunkies, mostly incompetents, so apparently Democrats had some plans they feared the military would step in and put a stop to.

This is idiotic. Every new presidential regime, over a four year period, will replace almost the entire leadership of all branches of US armed forces. Every. Single. One.

It's either because it's a cabinet position (like SecDef) where every president brings in new cabinet, a different political appointment (like SecNavy) where buy law is required to be a civilian appointed by president and confirmed by senate, or executive level military (like CSA) that is also appointed by POTUS, confirmed by senate, and has a four year term. Therefore military leadership will by this countries laws be replaced by every president, either due to POTUS bringing in his staff upon inauguration or the four year term of executive staff level military positions ending.

For example, General Casey was appointed CSA by Bush in 2007, and he went on to serve his full four year term before being replaced by Obama's appointment General Dempsey in 2011. He served the majority of his term under Obama after being appointed by Bush. Same with CJCS, it was Admiral Mullen appointed by Bush in 2007 and he served his full four year term mostly under Obama. They weren't fired or replaced by Obama before serving their full terms, which really doesn't align with your "desperate to replace" bullshit.

Rubbish, typical for Obama apologists. He was only concerned about putting sickos in place, same as Lincoln was when he created his own private Army loyal only to him when he needed to control the border states and control their ballot boxes. He had his own agenda for using the military, and it wasn't for national defense; he was more loyal to Iran than to the U.S., like most Democrats.

 

[Picaro]

The Democrats and Obama were desperate to replace the military's leadership with loyal flunkies, mostly incompetents, so apparently Democrats had some plans they feared the military would step in and put a stop to.

You nutcases should know that the Military is not going to take part in any hair brained scheme you concoct. Yah, I know there are a few fictional book out there that are tailored to sell books to your bunch but that is what they are. Fiction. The Military is designed to be NON Political where neither side can use them for their own petty benefits. Right now, no matter how much personal support Trump has, going to war with Iran to get elected will be met with extreme resistance from the Military and Congress. Trump is NOT all powerful no matter what he claims and what you believe.

You nutcases think way too much of yourselves. you would do what you were told to without a single protest, so quit pretending you wouldn't,it just makes you look stupid.

Get over yourself.

Take your own advice

I got over myself years ago. I think I was 14 at the time. That's when I became a Man, boy.

Is that what they told you when the controlled every minute of your life and what you to think? Obviously not, kid.

The fact is no President has ever had a problem ordering the military to do anything re domestic issues, from Jefferson to the Civil Rights Era. You're just delusional is all. You would piss yourself first rather than disobey an order.

Using a very unfavorable time as an example, during WACO, the Feds involved didn't have enough equipment for support. The US Military delivered equipment. After the delivery, There were a lot of Federal Troops playing double decked pinnocle waiting to bring that equipment home.

During my time in service, I worked to support Forrest Fire fighters right up to and including being right on the line with a shovel. Bot domestic and overseas, I helped to transport and distribute relief supplies for various emergencies like fires and flooding. The President did authorize this and did inform congress of it and congress would NEVER say no since it's humanitarian. You mistake the humanitarian side of the US Military with the Armed Law Enforcement side. The ONLY time that the President would even dream of sending in
Federal Military for Armed Law Enforcement would be if Congress gave it's permission. A President can do a lot of things that annoys or enrages congress but ordering the US Military to be put in a situation where it will have to fire on civilian population inside the US Bounderies without express permission from Congress is about the surest way to get impeached and convicted by the Congress. And that is what you are suggesting.

You want ot create a King to prevent another King. I don't remember who said something like this but..... Even a benevolent Dictator is still a dictator.

Another load of rubbish. No President has even been impeached for ordering Federal troops to attack civilians, not ever. Your strawman anecdotes aren't anything but stories.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You nutcases should know that the Military is not going to take part in any hair brained scheme you concoct. Yah, I know there are a few fictional book out there that are tailored to sell books to your bunch but that is what they are. Fiction. The Military is designed to be NON Political where neither side can use them for their own petty benefits. Right now, no matter how much personal support Trump has, going to war with Iran to get elected will be met with extreme resistance from the Military and Congress. Trump is NOT all powerful no matter what he claims and what you believe.

You nutcases think way too much of yourselves. you would do what you were told to without a single protest, so quit pretending you wouldn't,it just makes you look stupid.

Get over yourself.

Take your own advice

I got over myself years ago. I think I was 14 at the time. That's when I became a Man, boy.

Is that what they told you when the controlled every minute of your life and what you to think? Obviously not, kid.

The fact is no President has ever had a problem ordering the military to do anything re domestic issues, from Jefferson to the Civil Rights Era. You're just delusional is all. You would piss yourself first rather than disobey an order.

Using a very unfavorable time as an example, during WACO, the Feds involved didn't have enough equipment for support. The US Military delivered equipment. After the delivery, There were a lot of Federal Troops playing double decked pinnocle waiting to bring that equipment home.

During my time in service, I worked to support Forrest Fire fighters right up to and including being right on the line with a shovel. Bot domestic and overseas, I helped to transport and distribute relief supplies for various emergencies like fires and flooding. The President did authorize this and did inform congress of it and congress would NEVER say no since it's humanitarian. You mistake the humanitarian side of the US Military with the Armed Law Enforcement side. The ONLY time that the President would even dream of sending in
Federal Military for Armed Law Enforcement would be if Congress gave it's permission. A President can do a lot of things that annoys or enrages congress but ordering the US Military to be put in a situation where it will have to fire on civilian population inside the US Bounderies without express permission from Congress is about the surest way to get impeached and convicted by the Congress. And that is what you are suggesting.

You want ot create a King to prevent another King. I don't remember who said something like this but..... Even a benevolent Dictator is still a dictator.

Another load of rubbish. No President has even been impeached for ordering Federal troops to attack civilians, not ever. Your strawman anecdotes aren't anything but stories.

You left out one very important item in you ramp. Let me correct it. NO President has ever been impeached because he ordered Federal Troops to fire on American Citizens inside the borders of the United States in Modern times. Right after the Civil War ended, the Posse Commatitis Law was passed preventing or limiting the President in what he could do with Federal Troops inside the Borders of the United States. Eisenhower was borderline but he was enforcing the Supreme Courts rulings since the State refused. What's funny is, he used the Alabama National Guard to do it. So, in a way, he was covered. But it all depends on who you are asking.

 

[Picaro]

]



You left out one very important item in you ramp. Let me correct it. NO President has ever been impeached because he ordered Federal Troops to fire on American Citizens inside the borders of the United States in Modern times. Right after the Civil War ended, the Posse Commatitis Law was passed preventing or limiting the President in what he could do with Federal Troops inside the Borders of the United States. Eisenhower was borderline but he was enforcing the Supreme Courts rulings since the State refused. What's funny is, he used the Alabama National Guard to do it. So, in a way, he was covered. But it all depends on who you are asking.

President Washington used the same technicality in the 'Whiskey Rebellion', a pretty weak argument, since they were Federal officers and troops under oath, local militia or not, same when Nixon and others used them, and then we have Hoover's orders against the 'Bonus Army', the many assorted actions against strikers, throughout our history, and nobody can top Lincoln's private army of 75,000, paid at Federal expense to control the border states and keep the ballots of those states in his pocket, and loyal only to him personally.

It may depend on who you choose to ask, but I will just go by what our history shows when it comes to use of Federal troops, and that shows pretty much no objections on the part of the military to do whatever their CiC tells them to, good or bad, and would go for Obama's appointed toadies as well.

 

[DrainBamage]

Rubbish, typical for Obama apologists. He was only concerned about putting sickos in place, same as Lincoln was when he created his own private Army loyal only to him when he needed to control the border states and control their ballot boxes. He had his own agenda for using the military, and it wasn't for national defense; he was more loyal to Iran than to the U.S., like most Democrats.

Lot's of talk here but it doesn't add up... Obama didn't fire the top military staff that Bush had put in place despite them being appointed in 2011 so serving majority of their terms under Obama. General Dempsey had unanimous confirmation so a hell of a lot of Republicans must have been in on the plan. General Dunford is a highly respected Marine appointed by Obama, how exactly is he a sicko?

You can repeat the same thing over and over (and clearly you have) but the facts just aren't in your corner.

 

[Picaro]

Rubbish, typical for Obama apologists. He was only concerned about putting sickos in place, same as Lincoln was when he created his own private Army loyal only to him when he needed to control the border states and control their ballot boxes. He had his own agenda for using the military, and it wasn't for national defense; he was more loyal to Iran than to the U.S., like most Democrats.

Lot's of talk here but it doesn't add up... Obama didn't fire the top military staff that Bush had put in place despite them being appointed in 2011 so serving majority of their terms under Obama. General Dempsey had unanimous confirmation so a hell of a lot of Republicans must have been in on the plan. General Dunford is a highly respected Marine appointed by Obama, how exactly is he a sicko?

You can repeat the same thing over and over (and clearly you have) but the facts just aren't in your corner.

Because you said so. lol

 

[Daryl Hunt]

]



You left out one very important item in you ramp. Let me correct it. NO President has ever been impeached because he ordered Federal Troops to fire on American Citizens inside the borders of the United States in Modern times. Right after the Civil War ended, the Posse Commatitis Law was passed preventing or limiting the President in what he could do with Federal Troops inside the Borders of the United States. Eisenhower was borderline but he was enforcing the Supreme Courts rulings since the State refused. What's funny is, he used the Alabama National Guard to do it. So, in a way, he was covered. But it all depends on who you are asking.

President Washington used the same technicality in the 'Whiskey Rebellion', a pretty weak argument, since they were Federal officers and troops under oath, local militia or not, same when Nixon and others used them, and then we have Hoover's orders against the 'Bonus Army', the many assorted actions against strikers, throughout our history, and nobody can top Lincoln's private army of 75,000, paid at Federal expense to control the border states and keep the ballots of those states in his pocket, and loyal only to him personally.

It may depend on who you choose to ask, but I will just go by what our history shows when it comes to use of Federal troops, and that shows pretty much no objections on the part of the military to do whatever their CiC tells them to, good or bad, and would go for Obama's appointed toadies as well.

In today's military, it can't happen. The Prez can issue the order but that order will be an illegal order and will not be followed. You see, the Military has it's own version of the US Constitution. And you can hate Obama all you want and wishful think the Trump can use the US Military any way he wishes but they won't follow illegal orders. And being ordered to firing on US Citizens on US Soil would an illegal order and not followed. Now, step away from your fiction books and join reality for a change.

 

[Toro]

If Trump orders the military to install him as dictator will it obey? Can he depend on the troops to obey his orders? Can he depend on the generals to obey his orders?

You know how often foreign dictators have been able to get their troops to fall in line, could you say "no"?

My professor used to say iif you want to take over a country take over the army and the police.

 

[Bleipriester]

If Trump orders the military to install him as dictator will it obey? Can he depend on the troops to obey his orders? Can he depend on the generals to obey his orders?

You know how often foreign dictators have been able to get their troops to fall in line, could you say "no"?

My professor used to say iif you want to take over a country take over the army and the police.

No, they actually must like him. Given the fact that Dictator Trump would send them into the next fire, I would say no, they would not obey.

 

[DrainBamage]

Because you said so. lol

It's not an opinion, it's fact. You have zero evidence to support this conspiracy theory of your's, and when confronted with facts that run counter to it you kind of shrivel up and go with nonsensical replies.

 

[Wilkinson]

The PA allows any sitting potus executive privilege over judicial and legislative branches .

 

[rightwinger]

Why would the US have a coup?

We have a Constitution

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why would the US have a coup?

We have a Constitution

You people don't like it.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would the US have a coup?

We have a Constitution

You people don't like it.

Don’t like it?

We wrote it

 

[DrainBamage]

You people don't like it.

Who doesn't like it? I'm sure there are many people who don't, but you're framing it like an absolute.

Are you suggesting everyone in USA doesn't like the concept of law by Constitution, or that some people don't like parts of it, or that folks don't like the judicial branch's interpretation of it in case law? All completely different things.

"You people don't like it" doesn't make much sense.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why would the US have a coup?

We have a Constitution

You people don't like it.

Don’t like it?

We wrote it

Too funny. It was written by the classical liberals of the 18th Century, not the misnomered neo-Communists of the 21st, with whom there is no philosophical relation.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You people don't like it.

Who doesn't like it? I'm sure there are many people who don't, but you're framing it like an absolute.

Are you suggesting everyone in USA doesn't like the concept of law by Constitution, or that some people don't like parts of it, or that folks don't like the judicial branch's interpretation of it in case law? All completely different things.

"You people don't like it" doesn't make much sense.

Progressives and their phony "anarchist" minions would do away with it if they had the opportunity. It's a legal impediment to reaching their goals.

 

[DrainBamage]

Progressives and their phony "anarchist" minions would do away with it if they had the opportunity. It's a legal impediment to reaching their goals.

You're very good at attacking cartoon stereotypes and the opinions you assign to them, has anyone here in the thread you've been interacting with expressed a dislike for the US Constitution?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Progressives and their phony "anarchist" minions would do away with it if they had the opportunity. It's a legal impediment to reaching their goals.

You're very good at attacking cartoon stereotypes and the opinions you assign to them, has anyone here in the thread you've been interacting with expressed a dislike for the US Constitution?

Those to the Left of the spectrum.

The thing with "cartoon stereotypes" is that they all have their roots in reality.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would the US have a coup?

We have a Constitution

You people don't like it.

Don’t like it?

We wrote it

Too funny. It was written by the classical liberals of the 18th Century, not the misnomered neo-Communists of the 21st, with whom there is no philosophical relation.

Liberals