Reestablishing the National Guard: Yes or no?

darksurfer4 said:There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about calling for the creation of an organization meant to provide oversight for the Department of Justice.🤷

no

darksurfer4 said:There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about calling for the creation of an organization meant to provide oversight for the Department of Justice.🤷

At the end of the day—after all—isn't there already a layer of oversight in place? We have the US Federal Government and the Secretary of Homeland Security watching over the Department of Justice, don't we?☕
But the Department of Justice isn't really the issue here—is it?
Take a look at what’s unfolding right now over in Canada—quite a situation, wouldn't you say?
That’s exactly why we need the National Guard—to make sure we don't end up seeing those tragic scenes of violence and destruction like the ones from Canada?

jademoose6 said:At the end of the day—after all—isn't there already a layer of oversight in place? We have the US Federal Government and the Secretary of Homeland Security watching over the Department of Justice, don't we?☕
But the Department of Justice isn't really the issue here—is it?
Take a look at what’s unfolding right now over in Canada—quite a situation, wouldn't you say?
That’s exactly why we need the National Guard—to make sure we don't end up seeing those tragic scenes of violence and destruction like the ones from Canada?

Should the National Guard be stepping in to protect protesters from the police and the military?

Can someone please walk me through why anyone thinks pushing for lustration is actually useful at this stage in our lives? 🤷

I mean, let's be real—most of those old-school party officials are either six feet under or tucked away in some high-end retirement home. Honestly, what’s the point of all that extra work? It feels like a massive waste of both money and time, if you ask me.

jademoose6 said:At the end of the day—after all—isn't there already a layer of oversight in place? We have the US Federal Government and the Secretary of Homeland Security watching over the Department of Justice, don't we?☕
But the Department of Justice isn't really the issue here—is it?
Take a look at what’s unfolding right now over in Canada—quite a situation, wouldn't you say?
That’s exactly why we need the National Guard—to make sure we don't end up seeing those tragic scenes of violence and destruction like the ones from Canada?

I mean, honestly, how can you even ask what the Department of Justice has to do with these protests? It’s almost funny. 🤷
Look, we’ve all seen it happen time and time again—the courts and the Department of Justice aren't exactly these independent pillars of justice; they’re pretty much just extensions of whatever political agenda is running the show at the moment. Honestly, if they try to spin up some new version of the National Guard under these conditions, it’s going to be the exact same story. Just more tools for the people in power to play with.

Nicholas Watson said:Can someone please walk me through why anyone thinks pushing for lustration is actually useful at this stage in our lives? 🤷

I mean, let's be real—most of those old-school party officials are either six feet under or tucked away in some high-end retirement home. Honestly, what’s the point of all that extra work? It feels like a massive waste of both money and time, if you ask me.

The reality is that most political insiders are busy collecting massive salaries from state-owned corporations, federal agencies, and various departments.
We even see members of the US Congress voting against pay cuts for high-ranking officials today.
That entire system needs a serious overhaul and thorough vetting.☕

silentmason8 said:Should the National Guard be stepping in to protect protesters from the police and the military?

Not at all—their primary duty should be shielding our legally elected officials and their families while they work through demilitarization and vetting processes.
That is, assuming such leaders actually take office.

jademoose6 said:The reality is that most political insiders are busy collecting massive salaries from state-owned corporations, federal agencies, and various departments.
We even see members of the US Congress voting against pay cuts for high-ranking officials today.
That entire system needs a serious overhaul and thorough vetting.☕

Go ahead, pick me then. I’ll be sure to slash everyone's salary, starting with yours. 😬
My bad, I meant myself. 😁

Honestly, I think if we ever actually pull off this whole "vetting" thing, we're already way behind schedule. There aren't many real-world examples of people like Petra Kvitova or similar figures doing it here in the States.

Petrova is still young, and if he doesn't get corrupted by the machine, there might actually be hope that he could lead some new generation of politicians who are actually democratic and honest.🙂

jademoose6 said:Not at all—their primary duty should be shielding our legally elected officials and their families while they work through demilitarization and vetting processes.
That is, assuming such leaders actually take office.

Basically, just another cog in a repressive machine designed to protect the elite while cracking down on workers, students, and farmers. No thanks.

Sarah Bailey95 said:Nah, we definitely don't need paramilitary groups hanging around—we've already got the military and the police for that.

Give me a break... the Presidency used that exact same "logic" back when the old regime was falling apart. I’d say more, honestly, but I’ll probably just get slapped with another 30, 100, or 500 penalty points just for daring to have an opinion....

Jack Cook7 said:The US Cavalry is still around, honestly, and they basically stay afloat through the whole government subsidy system.

Got a link? I’m being serious, I’m genuinely curious. How does that even work? Where is it listed on paper?

silentmason8 said:Basically, just another cog in a repressive machine designed to protect the elite while cracking down on workers, students, and farmers. No thanks.

No, what part of this isn't clicking?
The US is simply too understaffed and institutionally hollowed out to handle serious demilitarization or a full-scale purge of the government. Especially since our agencies are crawling with moles and sleepers.
We’re going to need at least two or three brigades of actual operators—plus an empty federal detention center holding at least 1,000 inmates—along with a dedicated judicial task force and dozens of specialized courtrooms.
Basically, we need a brand new National Guard and an entire justice-oriented prison complex.
To some, that might sound totally unhinged—but honestly? It’s the bare minimum required to actually start anything meaningful.
As it stands, our current institutions have proven they just can't handle the job.

A military junta?

briskskipper27 said:A military junta?

Not quite.
To criminals, it might look that way—though in actual military juntas, you wouldn't even get a trial, just a bullet and a shallow grave—whereas here, we're actually discussing the judicial system.

Here are a few more numbers regarding Tomislav Karamarko.

So, what ever actually came of all those big announcements?
Absolutely nothing.
It turns out—as it happens—he simply lacks the power to make any of it stick.

jademoose6 said:I honestly don't get why some people jump straight to imagining military coups.
I haven't mentioned weapons or violence once in any of my posts.
It’s just common sense—wouldn't you call someone a fool for stepping out into a storm without an umbrella?
What would be so wrong about having a local National Guard cell in every neighborhood?
Just honest, decent neighbors—real patriots who actually have your back.
They could stay organized and ready—you know, just in case anything ever comes up...

Dana Patel7 said:Look, that’s just a pipe dream. It doesn't work. You see this exact setup all the time—units made up of "loyal patriots" and supposedly "moral citizens," starting out without even any actual firepower. Look at those SA squads in Germany. The only real difference is they were started by a political party instead of the government, but if we're talking about how these things actually play out, that distinction is basically irrelevant.
Honestly? Any group of (semi)armed people claiming to be driven by nothing but "patriotism" and "morality" scares the hell out of me. And anyone who’s seen enough of the real world knows why...

So what, you mean like that neighborhood watch guy in the US, George Zimmerman, who killed that kid?

briskskipper27 said:So what, you mean like that neighborhood watch guy in the US, George Zimmerman, who killed that kid?

Not at all.
Rather, local cells of true patriots would serve as the bedrock of trust—essential for ensuring the National Guard remains free from moles or sleepers, don't you think?
I see this as a three-year voluntary service period designed to support our legally elected officials in their efforts toward demilitarization and vetting the government.
It’s all about securing a better future for our children.

jademoose6 said:No, what part of this isn't clicking?
The US is simply too understaffed and institutionally hollowed out to handle serious demilitarization or a full-scale purge of the government. Especially since our agencies are crawling with moles and sleepers.
We’re going to need at least two or three brigades of actual operators—plus an empty federal detention center holding at least 1,000 inmates—along with a dedicated judicial task force and dozens of specialized courtrooms.
Basically, we need a brand new National Guard and an entire justice-oriented prison complex.
To some, that might sound totally unhinged—but honestly? It’s the bare minimum required to actually start anything meaningful.
As it stands, our current institutions have proven they just can't handle the job.

What kind of "moles" or "sleepers" are we even talking about here?😲😕

silentmason8 said:What kind of "moles" or "sleepers" are we even talking about here?😲😕

Exactly like these.

An individual spent six years feeding info on rations—all for a $275,000 payday.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-275000-484694

Corrupt officers have compromised some of the most sensitive Department of Justice investigations.
http://www.nytimes.com/corrupt-officers-doj-investigations/1056920/

Do I really need to spell it out any further?