Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

1102110221024102610271837

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    And he knows how much attention Putin pays to dictat from him….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,974 ✭✭✭✭briany


    To be fair, if Blatter were still FIFA president, I think Russia would probably be participating. That man's completely amoral.

    Infantino is hardly going to publicly battle the president of the United States over anything. His plámásing of Trump could be down to corruption, at least partly, but FIFA will obviously want the tournament to go off as smoothly as possible as well if only for the advertisers and so on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,601 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Trump gave two reasons for deploying troops and taking over the Washington DC police. Violent crime and the homeless.

    The violent crime claim was bullshine as it had dropped by 35% in 2024 compared to 2023, and this year has further dropped by 25% compared to 2024. Yet now he has increased the number of troops to 2,000 and all of them will be armed. With his violent crime reason being bullshine, then the only logical explanation - if you could actually associate anything related to Trump with logic - for Trump deploying 2,000 armed troops on the streets of Washington DC would be because of the homeless.

    Are the homeless in Washington DC that well organised and armed that there is even the remote possibility of them causing an armed uprising that would take 2,000 armed tropps to suprress using deadly force or is that also bullshine ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,598 ✭✭✭Economics101


    This overl;ooks what imho is the real reason for the deployment: intimidation of not only the population of DC (90% Democratic voteers) but also of the other Dem cities, especially those where people of colour are prominent in politics.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    THE reason he is doing it is to normalise it now in anticipation of the mid terms next year so he can have the military on the streets for any inevitable protests.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    A strong degree of retro training would be in order to prevent an over-reaction by troops working with cops or on their own interacting with civilians. Some-one mouthing off and squaring up to you doesn't mean they need to be pacified totally, which does happen occasionally regardless of one's country, regardless of training. The amount of times I met people who were trained to know and do better sometimes threw me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    If she publishes a book after it's been proof-read by the lawyers for all sides involved with no legal problems found in it's contents, will she (two years later) suddenly have her home raided by the FBI on the basis that some-one has suddenly found something questionable in it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,601 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I cannot see or have heard anyone provide any other even close to logical reason for it other than it being intimidation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭mountain


    a book by her, proof read by lawyers of

    Her late father

    Epstein

    And Trump would be a very short book



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,601 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I have no doubts, that along with intimidation, that is his aim as well as hoping he will get a reaction that will give him the excuse to declare military law where he can deploy the full time armed forces as well as the National Guard



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,974 ✭✭✭✭briany


    And we're only 7 months in. Still double that time until even the US midterms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    What I am hoping for is that if Trump tries to bring the regular army onto the streets using the same purpose he brought the N/G on to the streets "to lower street crime in the cities and stop the murder of civilians" is that the generals tell him they, across the board, will not obey his clearly unlawful orders and will orders all the military personnel under their command to remain in Bks AND they inform him and A.G Bondi that they will act to ensure the constitution remains the main stay of law and order in the the U.S. not whatever flight of fancy comes from Trump's scrambled brain, making it clear that Trump and Bondi will be made amenable for any blood spilt on the streets.

    I'd hope that, were the above to happen, that the governors who had sent N.G troops to Washington to do Trump's wishes would issue "return to armoury" orders to those NG units to avoid the two different sections of the U.S military clashing over an incapable head of state's rambling thought processes. The thing to keep in mind is that Trump is the convicted criminal who is engaging in further criminal activity day by day against the U.S citizens and constitution, the latest being an attempt to take the postal vote away from millions of those citizens. He will do his worst to prevent those citizens objecting to his criminal actions using the military to enforce his will.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭RickBlaine


    I really hope he is right about a reckoning for these bullies and thugs once Trump and the GOP are not in power anymore. They don't deserve to get away with this. And BTW, where are all the 2nd Amendment people who claim they need their guns in case the government being tyrannical and oppressive? Despite all their claims about protecting their constitutional rights, I think a lot of those hypocrites have no clue about constitutionally protected due process for everyone not just citizens.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    To be honest, without remotely condoning this fairly blatant intimidation tactic, I would trust soldiers to obey rules of engagement far far sooner than I would trust the majority of pretty crappily trained police.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,684 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    History would suggest armies are more than happy to deploy and what results is shots being fired. Armies are usually notoriously conservative people whk are more than happy to back the Trump's of the world.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭threeball


    Wishful thinking, the generals will roll over like puppies to have their bellies scratched. Theres no appetite to go against Trump, they'll just be replaced if they do a solo run. And even if a few worked in unison, then it would be framed as a coup.

    The only hope the States has is for the people to rise up and protest in their millions. If it doesnt happen soon then the grasp on total power will be too tight and there'll be no one to push back when the worst excesses are used.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Most do but there are unfortunately, sometimes, the worst of the worst amongst the best of the best, a tiny minority who do the unforgivable who, because they wear the same uniform as the best, stain the whole. Transferring that rule to the civil side, Trump (or lower down, DeSantis) versus Newsom.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,601 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    The rules of engagement that soldiers armed to the teeth are schooled in are a lot different from those police forces are. For soldiers it`s kill and destroy.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Depends on the solider and the environment really.

    The US armed forces were involved in policing in Afghanistan in a far more disciplined manner than a lot of police forces across the US manage.

    To be clear, I don't condone this move. There are truly valid concerns about the authoritarianist bent that the administration is moving towards. I just wouldn't be worried about it escalating violence on the streets as the police and ICE are far worse at that then I would expect the National Guard to be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,684 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    When the likes of Manicmoran come on and tell us all is fine because of precedent from 19dickedy2 they forgot to talk about the times when the national guard shot innocent civilians.

    Between the army, NG and ICE I can't see a scenario where someone doesn't open fire soon. There are just too many examples from modern history as to how this plays out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,750 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Just reflect for a moment, armed military on the streets on DC, and some talking about how this will be used for the midterms.

    Mad.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭threeball


    I don't believe any of the US military have the stomach for the fight. They're too divided. The military is full of maga bellends.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭threeball


    The US military had a terrible record of policing in Iraq and Afghanistan. More often than not they were bailed out by the British who had a far better record of working alongside the locals. The yanks were full of their bad guy, good guy shìt and had no interest in taking local customs or concerns into consideration. Our way or the high way is the MO of the US military.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Again, we are comparing it to normal policing in the States which is also terrible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,601 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    It was a totally different environment in Afganistan compared to Washington today.

    After the invasion there was no police force in the area of Afganistan that the U.S. even nominally controlled. The army`s stated role on policing was to provide training based on the then U.S. principle that police should be uniquely beholden to their communities and accountable to the public law.

    If anything Trump sidelining the Washington police force and deploying troops on the streets is the direct opposite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Apple Dumpling


    It’s mad watching the American MAGA and Republicans willingly giving up their freedoms all the while thinking they are sticking it to the woke lefties.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,601 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Even madder that Trump imposed this on Washington for reasons that were horse manure and is threatening the same for other city, where I`m sure it`s only a coincidence that those he has mentioned are Democrate cities.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,750 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    IMG_9951.jpeg

    The more you try and hide a lie…

    I think actually showing the bruise would be less obvious.



Advertisement
Advertisement