Enter The Trump Kakistocracy…

[molarbear]

On 8/22/2025 at 6:49 PM, tsar4 said:

I was all about this breath of fresh energy, until I got a text from the DNC from Gavin that said "Hello, I'm gavin and I'm upsetting the right at the moment. Donate any amount to show you're with me in this fight." 

It's just kind of like.....

Remember when that didn't help at all during the presidential election? Can we maybe not just immediately go to asking for donations whenever there is even the slightest whiff of momentum? Could we reserve those texts for people in a higher pay grade, possibly? Homie, your party's dismal performance in the last elections is one of the reasons my wallet is hurting

[tsar4]

Seems like I'd heard the phrase, "They will eat their own" somewhere...

 

[tsar4]

Soft Secession, anyone?

 

https://mikebakerlaw.com/blog/2025/08/22/soft-secession-vs-soft-fascism-how-states-quietly-resist-federal-overreach/

Edited yesterday at 09:21 PM by tsar4

[discolé monade]

"Chicago is a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent, and we'll straighten that one out probably next," Trump said.

 

The Post reported Saturday that Pentagon officials have for weeks been planning a deployment to Chicago that could involve sending thousands of National Guard troops to the city as early as September. Deploying active-duty troops has also been considered, the paper reported.

Edited 23 hours ago by discolé monade

[molarbear]

2 hours ago, discolé monade said:

"Chicago is a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent, and we'll straighten that one out probably next," Trump said.

 

The Post reported Saturday that Pentagon officials have for weeks been planning a deployment to Chicago that could involve sending thousands of National Guard troops to the city as early as September. Deploying active-duty troops has also been considered, the paper reported.

Semi complicated question, hoping you may have some form of an answer being prior military

What happens if a state mobilizes its national guard and refuses to allow them in?

Would that be viewed as treason since they would be defying a federal order? 

[discolé monade]

44 minutes ago, molarbear said:

Semi complicated question, hoping you may have some form of an answer being prior military

What happens if a state mobilizes its national guard and refuses to allow them in?

Would that be viewed as treason since they would be defying a federal order? 

all i'm gonna' say is kent state.

look, what i DO know is that if orders came down while i was in, i would have gone with conscientious objector and taken my chances during request mast/office hours,

the president is mobilizing them, for 2 different reasons. 

1 for ice assist - it would seem weapons were issued, not cool

2 for removal of american citizens - side arms WERE issued, and that's scary. 

we're talking national guard, that get together a weekend out of the month, and good party times 2 weeks out of the year. 

i don't see this ending well...but that's not what you asked

no, it wouldn't be treason, the gov. can deny access, as long as the guard was not federalized if so, then  gov. has no authorization over their own guard. but i don't think treason fits. 

tl:dr

yeah...this is NOT good. like at all.

 

[molarbear]

2 hours ago, discolé monade said:

all i'm gonna' say is kent state.

look, what i DO know is that if orders came down while i was in, i would have gone with conscientious objector and taken my chances during request mast/office hours,

the president is mobilizing them, for 2 different reasons. 

1 for ice assist - it would seem weapons were issued, not cool

2 for removal of american citizens - side arms WERE issued, and that's scary. 

we're talking national guard, that get together a weekend out of the month, and good party times 2 weeks out of the year. 

i don't see this ending well...but that's not what you asked

no, it wouldn't be treason, the gov. can deny access, as long as the guard was not federalized if so, then  gov. has no authorization over their own guard. but i don't think treason fits. 

tl:dr

yeah...this is NOT good. like at all.

 

I honestly think this is what they're going for already.

It wasn't working, so they keep feeding this myth to the media that these towns are lawless thunderdomes and I assuming they're hoping someone gets anxious and trigger happy.

They don't care who, they're just looking for a reason 

My question, though, more about the national guard orders

I thought they were state militias that took orders from the governor? My question is more along of lines of if they try to send national guard in from other states, and the illinois governor has their national guard meet them and say "hell nah...gtfo"

Who has authority? Would the summoned national guard from other states be federal troops at that point?

[Raptorpat]

"I'm going to end the weaponization of justice"

 

[discolé monade]

9 hours ago, molarbear said:

I honestly think this is what they're going for already.

It wasn't working, so they keep feeding this myth to the media that these towns are lawless thunderdomes and I assuming they're hoping someone gets anxious and trigger happy.

They don't care who, they're just looking for a reason 

My question, though, more about the national guard orders

I thought they were state militias that took orders from the governor? My question is more along of lines of if they try to send national guard in from other states, and the illinois governor has their national guard meet them and say "hell nah...gtfo"

Who has authority? Would the summoned national guard from other states be federal troops at that point?

if prez called in ntl guard from a specific state, gov has no authority over his guard. if prez called in guard from another state and attempted to invade a state and gov called in his ntl guard, then, i think i would be more concerned if pres succeeded. however (and luckily?) it is against the law and unconstitutional for the pres. to 'invade' within the interior. what trump is doing is right at the tippy toe line,   against fed. mandates.

arming those ntl guard in DC is by design.  these folks do NOT train for this type of situation. never has any base, camp, detachment, or fort that i've ever trained at, train you to be armed against american civilians  -  i'm not saying that we're not trained to handle hostile IF NEEDED.  BUT...and that's a HUGE but, there are all kinds of protocols in place before *insert diety of choice* forbid, that would be needed. 

when we were requested by the gov. for the LA riots, our ONLY "weapons" were batons, shields/helmets. that's it. hand to hand was the extent of force.  because you know...american citizens. 

Edited 8 hours ago by discolé monade
lol...channeling my inner mr hoonie.

[1pooh4u]

6 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

"I'm going to end the weaponization of justice"

 

“No one is above the law” 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

does he ever even hear himself?

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

[1pooh4u]

This shit ain’t funny though. Mandating torture “treatment” be paid for by insurance companies while barring medically based and accepted treatments 

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2025/08/coverage-gender-affirming-care-will-be-eliminated-fehb-plans-2026/407553/
 

well at least if someone is already getting treatment they’re still going to be covered but for how long?

 

[scoobdog]

12 hours ago, molarbear said:

I honestly think this is what they're going for already.

It wasn't working, so they keep feeding this myth to the media that these towns are lawless thunderdomes and I assuming they're hoping someone gets anxious and trigger happy.

They don't care who, they're just looking for a reason 

My question, though, more about the national guard orders

I thought they were state militias that took orders from the governor? My question is more along of lines of if they try to send national guard in from other states, and the illinois governor has their national guard meet them and say "hell nah...gtfo"

Who has authority? Would the summoned national guard from other states be federal troops at that point?

You mean like Cal Guard facing off against the California National Guard?

[discolé monade]

1 hour ago, scoobdog said:

You mean like Cal Guard facing off against the California National Guard?

still can't happen. by law, that is. IF that is the scenerio...than we're in bigger trouble than treason. 

and treason would only apply if gov. were to lose. 

right? maybe?

fuck..you know..i don't even know anymore. because everying i knew through service and life has literally been turned sideways...not quite upside down..

but def. sideways. 

ntl guard, called on the homeless and mentally ill.

never in my fucking life time. 

[discolé monade]

and heeeerrrreeee weeee goooooo

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/prosecuting-burning-of-the-american-flag/

[Raptorpat]

there it is

[scoobdog]

47 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

still can't happen. by law, that is. IF that is the scenerio...than we're in bigger trouble than treason. 

and treason would only apply if gov. were to lose. 

right? maybe?

fuck..you know..i don't even know anymore. because everying i knew through service and life has literally been turned sideways...not quite upside down..

but def. sideways. 

ntl guard, called on the homeless and mentally ill.

never in my fucking life time. 

Not to put words in Molar's mouth here, but there is theoretically at least one way in which a state militia or state reserve could impede the state's national guard without directly conflicting with it (which seems to be functionally impossible in addition to being illegal).

Using California as an example, many but not all Cal Guard members hold standing in the National Guard.  If Cal Guard is deployed to do its thing before Trump decides to mobilize the National Guard, there is a potential for conflicting orders and some Cal Guard members who would be following only the governor.  It's more of a technical than a practical issue, nonetheless Newsome could hamstring the military operating inside its own borders at least initially.  It's uncharted territory so there's no real way of knowing what would happen if it were to come up.

One other thing to bring up since Hogseth (oink oink) is an inompetent bigoted drunk - a state governor deploying his state's reserve guard necessitates the DoD actually following military protocol.  In California (and presumably everywhere else the NG was deployed), DoD did not issue official orders prior to mobilization.  I assume it was either a cheap tactic to show force either due to the questionable legal nature of the declared state of emergency, due to a lack of budget to pay deployed troops, or a combination of the two, but even if it was just an oversight bred by incompetence, it would further delay any federal command.

[1pooh4u]

45 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

and heeeerrrreeee weeee goooooo

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/prosecuting-burning-of-the-american-flag/

We should just go out and burn all the American flags now.  
 

our country sucks with its unclear rulings. Flag burning is protected speech but not if it incites violence aka “fighting words” 

this will go before the SC and will surprise no one when they say “flag burning isn’t protected speech” which it is but they will say it’s not. 

[rpgamer]

4 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

This shit ain’t funny though. Mandating torture “treatment” be paid for by insurance companies while barring medically based and accepted treatments 

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2025/08/coverage-gender-affirming-care-will-be-eliminated-fehb-plans-2026/407553/
 

well at least if someone is already getting treatment they’re still going to be covered but for how long?

 

If we're stuck with suffering this bullshit, I'd be on board with some more malicious compliance.

Erectile dysfunction meds banned. Hair loss treatments banned. If shit is word-for-word promoted to "make you feel more like a man," that's literally gender affirming care.

[discolé monade]

3 hours ago, scoobdog said:

Not to put words in Molar's mouth here, but there is theoretically at least one way in which a state militia or state reserve could impede the state's national guard without directly conflicting with it (which seems to be functionally impossible in addition to being illegal).

Using California as an example, many but not all Cal Guard members hold standing in the National Guard.  If Cal Guard is deployed to do its thing before Trump decides to mobilize the National Guard, there is a potential for conflicting orders and some Cal Guard members who would be following only the governor.  It's more of a technical than a practical issue, nonetheless Newsome could hamstring the military operating inside its own borders at least initially.  It's uncharted territory so there's no real way of knowing what would happen if it were to come up.

One other thing to bring up since Hogseth (oink oink) is an inompetent bigoted drunk - a state governor deploying his state's reserve guard necessitates the DoD actually following military protocol.  In California (and presumably everywhere else the NG was deployed), DoD did not issue official orders prior to mobilization.  I assume it was either a cheap tactic to show force either due to the questionable legal nature of the declared state of emergency, due to a lack of budget to pay deployed troops, or a combination of the two, but even if it was just an oversight bred by incompetence, it would further delay any federal command.

ok...but see, now we're going around our elbow to get to our asses. 

i guess i thought i was saying something along those lines. this avenue is now too diluted to understand who would be correct...except what i know is that cal guard, and any other state guard fall under national guard....so, now we're playing with a timeclock? that is who gets orders first. and either way, gov has full play on that....i thought.