Some 1,500 active duty Army paratroopers have been put on alert for a potential deployment to Minnesota, according to two defense officials.

They're ones who are trained and equipped for arctic warfare. This is kind of thing you do when planning to massacre civilians.

Edit: The Washington Post is now saying the same thing:

Pentagon readies 1,500 soldiers to possibly deploy to Minnesota, officials say

Soldiers with the Army’s 11th Airborne Division in Alaska have been placed at the ready following Trump’s Insurrection Act threat, according to defense officials.

top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 94 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Welp, here comes the military litmus test. Are you mother fuckers going to comply with orders to murder civilians?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    They have already murdered civilians in Venezuela. They have been trained to fight and kill, it’s not like they are having moral this time. This is what that orange turd is waiting on all the time. He would rise up martial law and refuse to let any votings happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    You see, the majority of soldiers deployed will be guarding street corners, they will handpick the ones willing to open fire, bust heads, etc., then make special units of them for the wetwork type stuff. That is their plan, like they did in 2020 with that special unit they made to disappear people in portland, cherry picking assholes from the bureau of prisons.

    They will be nurturing paramilitaries too, no I am not referring to Ice which is a security service under control of the government and therefore not paramilitary even if militarized, but groups like the proud boys, 3 percenters, that they will nurture to attack critics and protesters and the like in ways they don't want the security services' goon squads to do directly. The police will go hard against anyone that fights back against them, give them a pass, share intelligence with them, etc.

    These deployments they are just testing the waters and setting precedents, with 2028 in mind. With permanently fixing elections in mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago*

    People that comment about the civilians of Venezuela aren’t taking into account the psychology of those you know versus those you don’t. Firing on American civilians is going to be very different mind game, even for soldiers trained to kill. Being on home turf and having to actually destroy your own infrastructure and kill people you know have a culture the same as yours is different even if there are political differences. Hearing fellow soldiers screaming and crying for mom or help after being shot is a mind fuck in war, but then hearing civilians do it? Knowing you will go home and face people there that question whether you did it and then their treatment of you afterward is going to be a factor. Most are not career military…

    There will be those that do it, but I’m willing to put money on more soldiers that second guess, hesitate, or purposely miss if ordered to fire.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 169 points 9 months ago (52 children)
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago (50 children)
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (36 children)
  • [+] -21 points 9 months ago (35 children)

    She was a sold out corporatist running a status quo campaign. Not a popular one either, never breached 30 approval the entire term pre anointment. Disliked by both blacks and woman, not that that will stop you blaming bigotry, as if that would excuse throwing the election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 9 months ago (34 children)

    Thank god you avoided that mess am I right?

    Look I have no horse in this other than the fact that whatever happens with your fucked up country seems to spill over the rest of the world. Was she perfect? Hell no. Was she liked ? Hell no. Was she crazy and surrounded by crazier people? Also no.

    So I am not sure what is it you are trying to say but what I am saying is, having her would have avoided us being on the brink of collapse into another world war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [+] -33 points 9 months ago (33 children)

    They ran status quo against reform, with the most unpopular choice they could find.

    One of the few that had approvals even lower than the r candidate, never breaching 30%.

    I can't make it any easier to understand than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 9 months ago (29 children)

    Ok and as responsible voters it would have been absolutely disastrous to vote for her instead of letting this orange baboon get in with a vengeance. I understand! Thank you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 9 months ago (23 children)

    So it's everyone else's fault except for the people forcing an unwinnable strategy, got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (22 children)

    Well kind of. In this case and in your voting system you only have two choices. One is crazy and vile the other you dislike out of principle. One told you what he is going to do, the other you didn't like the message, the framing the status quo and all that you said (which don't get me wrong, if this was any other time you would be perfectly right!). And now we are here! At this point from the outside looking in, you voted against your best interest ... There is no other way to look at it. But what you say stands because like I said, if this was the second bush campaign, hell even if this was again the first trump campaign you are absolutely right. But this last time you knew what was going to happen! He told you! Yet ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    That is not a very accurate analysis at all. The democrats are controlled opposition. They are playing good cop to republican bad, even as republicans are openly playing hitler.

    Your analysis just boils down to victim blaming. If only we perpetually voted for the less bad option we would be enjoying more plutocratic rot and a slower degeneration.

    But if that was your goal, you had to be popular enough to win. So you only have yourselves to blame if you trusted the democratic establishment to know what they were doing. After 3 successive shit shows of presidential elections at that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago* (15 children)

    If an outlet in your home started an electrical fire, it would be pretty stupid to ignore the fire to focus on fixing the wiring. You don't have any more wiring if the house burns down.

    Their analysis was totally accurate. The voters who abstained from voting D as a protest decided that the wiring had to be fixed first instead of putting out the fire and focusing on the wires once the immediate danger was taken care of.

    The only victims here are those who did what they had to in order to prevent Trump's second term. Everyone else made a choice to risk it and lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    The focus first needs to be on the builder that is putting in the electricity wrong in your scenario. You are blaming the renters instead of the builder that chronically installs electricity wrong, then told everyone it was ok. Loose wires, no gfci, no cfi, and the breakers aren't done properly leading to overloading the circuits before they trip if at all.

    Seriously if you are being sincere, explain how it's everyone else's fault for the leaders forcing a doomed to fail strategy when it's never more important not to get it.

    Then explain why you would change the subject from that to if someone personally voted, assuming their vote or lack of. You can explain if it's something you do consciously to obscure the issue using slander, or it it's subconscious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    Sure, go after the builder while your house is on fire. Sounds smart.

    The Democrats fucked up the campaign, there's no doubt about it, but Trump said he was going to do this. They literally published their plans and they're following them.

    The people who didn't vote to stop him made a decision, and because of that choice we're here now. The voters were last line of defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    In your dumbass analogy here we are setting up to build more houses, paid by us, built by them, with the same faulty electronics.

    You didn't answer my question, you just repeated your slander. Didn't answer whether that is something you do consciously or not either. So I guess that means I win, logically. Enjoy your new house!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    You're still ignoring the fact that the house is on fire with you trapped in it. You can't go after the builder if you're dead.

    People who fail to comprehend the very simple concept of prioritization are responsible for handing Trump the presidency. Plain and simple. Trump would not be causing the damage he promised to cause if they had made a different decision, full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Your dumbass analogy is way off base. The election is over, anew one is closer than the previous.

    You still trust unpopular aristocrats in league with the super rich fervently opposed to "the left," they cannot win elections without running the party.

    You, and they, slander the subject of how they are the enemy, with whatabouts and victim blaming, and personal attacks without merit to put people on the defensive and change the subject.

    You will doom us all, and have helped the republicans more than most everyone, and maga is amplifying you to ensure beatable candidates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    The election is over, anew one is closer than the previous.

    Since we're discussing the 2024 election, you're the only dumb ass here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    Says the tool of moderate democrats lobbing ad hominems to distract from losing the election against the most hated president ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Says the person with no concept of nuance or prioritization.

    It's alright to admit that you're wrong, you know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Ah yes, the nuance of nominating unelectable candidates running as the status quo throwing elections to fascists fully intent on fixing elections.

    But those fascists help those unelectable candidates get chosen, help shout down calls for winnable candidates and platforms. You are a valuable maga player whether you know it or not, a Generally Important Maga Player, or gimp for short.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Harris wasn't nominated, which is part of the problem, but that's ultimately on Biden.

    Harris ran a shit campaign, but she basically got thrown into it at the last minute. Campaigning against trump was expensive, so she shifted her message to try to secure more funding and reach across the aisle to win people away from trump. That ended up being a mistake.

    But, as VP she pushed for an official investigation into Israel's actions in Gaza that would have been required to negate the law requiring us to fund them. And if you look at her Senate voting history, she was the closest to Sanders out of everyone.

    Often in life you don't get perfect choices, or even good ones. There will never be a political candidate that will check all of your boxes, but when the choice is between getting a cavity and getting curb stomped, only an idiot would bite the curb.

    Letting Trump win isn't punishing the Democrat leadership, it's punishing the entire country and then some. The right move would have been to elect Harris, then spend the next 4 years working on primarying the neoliberals. The MAGA movement would have lost a ton of steam if he had lost, which would have given some breathing room to do that.

    But now everyone's efforts are going towards fighting back against Trump's promised fascist takeover of the country, a genocide on our own home soil, a looming great depression, and the start of WWIII.

    Progress is slow, and choosing the 2024 election to make a stand was really fucking stupid timing, as evidenced by the current state of affairs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    2024 wasn't the first election. People have tried your idea for decades at least. People were begging for change so much, Americans elected a black guy with a Muslim name, and don't have shit to show for it but more wars, more families kicked out of their homes, more suicides, and more bankers running the government. Occupy Wall Street accomplished nothing. The Iraq war protests accomplished nothing. March for our Lives accomplished nothing. BLM riots accompanied nothing. WV voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary and won him every single county, but Clinton won the state. Harris had to drop out of the 2020 election before a single vote was cast, and she was APPOINTED as the Democratic nominee in 2024, so voting accomplished nothing. What exactly would you have people do? And yes, electing Trump also won't accomplish ending wars, or releasing the Epstein Files, but how can you blame people for having hope, after being let down for electing a Hope & Change candidate, and getting shit to show for it?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The only thing your stupidity won is a second trump term. Congrats "dumbass".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago

    You use libel to obscure the issue, as you cannot answer the undisputable facts that the establishment was always going to fail.

    Dumbass indeed. But maga forces amplify you to get beatable opposition, assuming you are a misguided sheep and not a cynical manipulator of well meaning people into throwing the elections.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    The only thing you win is more paste to eat you fucking kumquat. What debate bro bullshit rotted your brain into thinking if someone doesn't answer a stupid question it somehow means you "win". Have fun burning alive while you're trying to find the contact info of your electrician.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Ok sure but now you have this. What do you say about this situation. I am really curious if you will ever vote again or if your vote will matter anymore down the line.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Why would you assume how I voted? You think everyone that votes democratic pretends to think they are good choices?

    Or is that your way of obscuring the issues with slander?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I didn't assume. I said I am curious if you (as in the lot of you)will ever vote again. He said that too remember? Vote for me and you will never have to vote again!

    Sorry if I aggravated you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry I'm on the warpath. I always vote, against the republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Yeah I cannot even imagine how stressful must be for you guys. I really wish things will settle and cooler heads will win. I would put forward that one doesn't vote against someone... This is the sentiment in my country where people go vote against one guy or another. In an ideal world it should be you vote for your interest. I don't know I am scared about the future for the first time in my life...

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    ...Wait, why are you expecting responsibility from voters but not the heads of a full-on political party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I am not expecting anything. I am just saying you guys voted (or didn't even bother) against your interest. He told you what he was going to do yet you chose that as the moment to send a lesson to the democratic leadership who clearly can't give two shits about what the voters want. To think that the only ones responsible are those in the upper echelons of the Democratic party is quite childish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago

    You assume much of your interlocutors.

    But also, I don't think you realize it, but you just endorsed not voting Democrat. If your stance is to be taken seriously, and the democratic leadership "clearly can’t give two shits about what the voters want", then voting in your interest requires either swaying the Republican party, or starting a third party. And, considering the "moment to send a lesson" wasn't 2024, but 2016, and the lesson not only clearly wasn't learned, but seems to have gone entirely unnoticed and forgotten, I fear you may be right.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    It obviously cannot be both! /S

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I mean, this is bait, but of course it's both. And I do genuinely mean both, the game of chicken isn't single player, but of the two, one side failed as citizens, and the other both as citizens and as professionals, who the first side literally pays to not let shit like this happen. That's the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    The state backed media portrayed it Biden Kamala as "status quo". In the real world though, Trump clearly has no opposition to maintaining the status quo for billionaires no matter who he has to murder or regime change to do so.

    I would argue the Biden FTC chair represented more long term threat to major US corporations than anything Trump has done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yet we all know the voters don't know the what the republicans are. That voters know they are being screwed if not by whom. The only ones promising to do anything about it were republicans.

    Amazing how such a simple point is missed by so many because you trust fancy people that tell you otherwise that have been wrong about everything. In the next breath complaining about the media owned by corporations after people working for those same people spoon feed you your opinions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    Maybe you shouldn't have anointed the most unpopular option for president running a status quo campaign against republicans running as reform, then blamed everyone else for not doing what they long made clear they wouldn't do, vote for worthless status quo democrats perpetually. Not the least as Biden did NOTHING with his presidency.

    Still passing the buck, blaming everyone else. You knew she couldn't win, forced her anyway, on a campaign you knew couldn't win, and forced it anyway. Now blame everyone else to keep the same people that chose her in control to fail us all over again.

    It's just unbelievable the arrogance of those of you that support the democratic party establishment. Disgraceful. You are the problem, not everyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Maybe you should have cared about reality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Speak for yourself. I laid out an irrefutable case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    You just said that no one else is the problem except the people who voted for the Democrats. And you think that's an irrefutable case? You are delusional or intentionally trolling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    You just keep slinging libels because you can't answer the question, there is no stopping the worst people through this democratic party under their leadership.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, allowing Trump to do exactly all the shit we warned about is so worth it. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Exactly, by running as the status quo you allowed him to make everything worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    All you have to do to believe your crusade was good: ignore the fuck out of reality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Biden was hands down the most progressive presidential administration in my lifetime. He did tons of little things that everybody - including actual leftists - really liked.

    But he will always only be remembered as the person who failed to hold Trump accountable, thus clearing the way for his second term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    Praytell what little things did he do?

    Things went to shit faster than with any dem before, his popularity was underwater for 3 years, he stabbed unions in the back, provided air cover to no one trying to do anything popular like lisa khan, no grand reform, no attacks on health insurance, drugs.

    If you say negotiating on ten drugs after first giving them 2 years to prepare to negotiate was a great victory I have nothing more to say to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 58 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 56 points 9 months ago (26 children)

    Could also be for Greenland.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] [S] 91 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    Could be; both are utterly illegal and any soldier who follows an order to attack either deserves to be prosecuted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -37 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    I don't think it's so black and white. A lot of those soldiers are barely surviving and their money feeds their kids. Enlisted don't have the luxury of disobeying orders blindly, that law is applicable to the officers issuing them.

    Having said that, as a vet, I would do malicious incompetence and sabotage our mission in "incompetent" ways as much as possible. Also, I would never open fire on innocent civilians no matter what.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 51 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    Sorry but levying war against the United States is the one crime laid out in the Constitution. Don't Do It.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    You know that's not what the orders will say when they are given to the soldiers, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 39 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    They know full well they're going to Minnesota to kill a bunch of people for...blowing whistles.

    Right move in that situation is ro refuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    You're ignoring the nuance, which is a weapon of Maga, so be better. The orders don't say kill them. It says "go and maintain order". Politics aside, they think they are the good guys. Many of them don't have a clue that they're being used as puppets to escalate the fascist takeover.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Sure, there is what is explicit, but they have access to the same news I do, and know what this is about. The US military isn't operating in an information vacuum like the Soviet army in Budapest during the cold war who thought they were there to fight Americans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

    They can't ignore orders that aren't illegal. They have to walk right up to the line and THEN refuse to cross it when shit goes sideways. But by then the tension will be high enough for an incident... That's all Maga cares about. They don't need to send kill orders to get what they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think they do know that. How many brainwashed people have you met yourself? Have you listened to any Fox News coverage - what would someone who trusts that outlet believe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I have met a lot of both active duty and retired service members. Not a single one of them would follow such an order.

    Have you ever met a United States service member?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    You didn't reply properly.

    An order to "kill anyone blowing a whistle" or an order to "kill any domestic terrorists who approach suspiciously"?

    And sure, but I don't think our collective anecdotes are useful here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    I don't think it's so black and white.

    Legal Eagle did a video about this. Ultimately an American soldier is liable for carrying out illegal orders. Refusing illegal orders is extremely complicated, but carrying them out is still illegal and they are subject to the law. It doesn't matter if they were "just following orders".

    https://youtu.be/wkaS3-9WvM8

    Edit: spelling

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    At this point I think it is distraction. Notice that if he actually intends on doing something he just does it (giving Russia edge over Ukraine, Venezuela etc).

    If that's not his choice, but wants to distract media (hello Epstein) he just talks about it (for example aid to Ukraine, help to Iranians).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 27 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    He telegraphed intent to attack Venezuela for months before actually sending the military to kidnap their president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    That's because to do the mission he needed to get snug Navy present there. He used drug snuggling smuggling as an excuse. And that took few months.

    Notice that once mission was performed now the drugs are no longer a problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    President of peace everyone!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    1 comment in c/usa@midwest.social view that post