President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[BlueK]

You've kind of changed the question.

Once someone has walked 2000+ miles to escape this horrific situation you describe, if they were to be denied the hoped for relief - I wouldn't be surprised if they began to think and behave irrationally. They are desperate. Often desperate people don't act or think rationally.

It would be a pretty extreme situation that would require someone to get shot.

[LVAllen]

Actually, the troops being deployed are National Guard troops, so Posse Comitatus doesn't apply. I remember carrying a loaded M16 in New Orleans--never thought I'd see the day.



Border protection is an interesting function, and you certainly wouldn't expect our standing army to be prohibited from doing so. I hope America never sees full scale war on its soil ever again.

The 800 people being assigned are active duty military, ordered from the Pentagon. Not National Guard.

[Eddie]

It would be a pretty extreme situation that would require someone to get shot.

I don't disagree.

But if she said there was no chance ever that anyone could be shot, and then someone was, how well would that go over? Better or worse than saying "that's silly - no one is going to get shot over this" and then they do?

[BlueK]

I don't disagree.

But if she said there was no chance ever that anyone could be shot, and then someone was, how well would that go over? Better or worse than saying "that's silly - no one is going to get shot over this" and then they do?

"right now" is pretty ominous sounding even if it wasn't meant that way. Maybe she's just a horrible spokesperson and that's it. I truly hope that's all it is. The problem is it's hard for some not to assume the least humanitarian interpretation of that from an administration that has already taken children away and secretly shipped them to other states without so much as keeping track of who their parents were.

[Commando]

Not an important point but obviously they aren't walking the whole way from Honduras. Mostly by hired transport like bus.

[Commando]

"right now" is pretty ominous sounding even if it wasn't meant that way. Maybe she's just a horrible spokesperson and that's it. I truly hope that's all it is. The problem is it's hard for some not to assume the least humanitarian interpretation of that from an administration that has already taken children away and secretly shipped them to other states without so much as keeping track of who their parents were.

Trump's MO right now right before midterms is to ramp up the hysteria and scare tactics however he can. OH NOES THERE IS AN INVASION AFOOT! Oh f*k right off, you orange douche nozzle. His lieutenants aren't deviating from that script. Hence the 'AS OF RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A BIT OF A MEXICAN STANDOFF IF YOU WILL WITH THE CARAVAN OF MALNOURISHED TODDLERS WHO ARE CLEARLY WELL PAID CRISIS ACTORS AND MIDDLE EASTERNERS WITH FAKE HISPANIC NAMES AND MS13 MEMBERS FROM HONDURAS EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN LA GANG THAT EXPANDS OUTWARD NOT INWARD AND ALSO EACH OF WHOM FORGOT TO GET THEIR MS13 TATTOOS. OUR RIFLES ARE TRAINED ON THEIR NECKS BUT WE DON'T WANT TO MOW THEM ALL DOWN JUUUUST YET!

[Bo Diddley]

The 800 people being assigned are active duty military, ordered from the Pentagon. Not National Guard.

Yes, I stand corrected. That's an interesting development, but as a border mission, I see no problem with that. Sounds like they're support troops, and likely unarmed, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the weapons are secured close by.

I read that some law enforcement personnel on the border are saying the troops are making zero difference and it's a collosal waste of resources.

[Commando]

I read that some law enforcement personnel on the border are saying the troops are making zero difference and it's a collosal waste of resources.

Of course it is. What is probably going to happen is that people will bed down along the border fence like they're waiting for concert tickets while CBP does its best to get them sorted out one at a time for asylum screening. The media spotlight is too bright right now to just tell them any ol' shit and illegally turn them away like they're used to doing-- which turns out is a lot easier by the way-- so it'll take a while.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I agree that more context may be needed for the Secretary's statement, but imagine a law enforcement officer saying the same thing just before a peaceful demonstration in D.C., a march in Selma, or even Burning Man. Is there any evidence that participants in the "caravan" are armed or a physical threat? Evidence other than Trump's typically baseless assurances that there are members of MS-13 and Middle Easterners hiding among the rest of the group?

[creekster]

I agree that more context may be needed for the Secretary's statement, but imagine a law enforcement officer saying the same thing just before a peaceful demonstration in D.C., a march in Selma, or even Burning Man. Is there any evidence that participants in the "caravan" are armed or a physical threat? Evidence other than Trump's typically baseless assurances that there are members of MS-13 and Middle Easterners hiding among the rest of the group?

There are 4-10k people, the leaders of whom are using rhetoric suggesting they plan to rush the border and get in. Is that a threat of violence? Do we have the right and even obligation to control the integrity of our national borders? I just don't get the excitement here. The military is being used to protect the border. If the aliens don't rush the military, don't attack the military, etc., then there will be no problem. If the military on the border is threatened by persons outside of the border seeking to violate the border's integrity, then I would expect them to be prepared to defend themselves. If, by contrast, there is no threat and these aliens simply wait to be processed, then the military should not shoot.

I actually just tracked down the interview Nielsen gave to Fox News. A couple of interesting things:

1. WHen asked if the military is armed, she said all rules of engagement for the military are set by Secretary Mattis. She expects these rules of engagement to be determined as they gain more information about the caravan and its destination and its conduct.

2. Rules of Engagement for Border Patrol services are the same as they have been; no change.

3. She was asked "if people cross the border will they be shot at?" in response to which she said "We do not have any intention right now to shoot at anyone but they will be apprehended." She then also points out that officers have the right to self defense. She was then asked the follow-up "So, if they (the military or border patrol agents) are shot at they will shoot back?" and she said "No, not necessarily, we would have to work through that."

Here is the link to the videotaped interview, these comments are at about the 2:00 minute mark.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/2...cannot-come-us

WTH is wrong with that position or those comments? In fact, after listening to the interview, it is very, very clear that the CNN characterization was very misleading and seems meant to stir up the precise reaction some of you have had here, as opposed to trying to accurately report what the secretary actually said.

[falafel]

Yes. It's rational to walk away from a horrific situation in their home country of complete anarchy. is this even a serious question? Maybe if you were in the same situation you would make a different decision, but that doesn't mean either decision is irrational.

I'm not talking about the rationality of their decision to leave their country, but I suspect you know that. Put yourself in their shoes: you walk hundreds, maybe thousands of miles to escape anarchy, violence, poverty, etc. Maybe you bring your wife and children, because you are concerned for their safety back home. You make this incredible sacrifice and difficult trek, only to be stopped at the very last second by armed guards. Your objective is so close you can taste it. You are tired, hungry, thirsty, perhaps dehydrated, frustrated.

I don't think it is out of the question that a portion of these people, having been thus denied, would act maybe a bit irrationally, a bit angrily, and attack the armed border guards.

[falafel]

It would be a pretty extreme situation that would require someone to get shot.

No, it would be an entirely foreseeable situation.

Besides, if they army/national guard didn't have guns, how effective would they be at turning away a hoard of 7,000 people?

[PaloAltoCougar]

There are 4-10k people, the leaders of whom are using rhetoric suggesting they plan to rush the border and get in. Is that a threat of violence? Do we have the right and even obligation to control the integrity of our national borders? I just don't get the excitement here. The military is being used to protect the border. If the aliens don't rush the military, don't attack the military, etc., then there will be no problem. If the military on the border is threatened by persons outside of the border seeking to violate the border's integrity, then I would expect them to be prepared to defend themselves. If, by contrast, there is no threat and these aliens simply wait to be processed, then the military should not shoot.

I actually just tracked down the interview Nielsen gave to Fox News. A couple of interesting things:

1. WHen asked if the military is armed, she said all rules of engagement for the military are set by Secretary Mattis. She expects these rules of engagement to be determined as they gain more information about the caravan and its destination and its conduct.

2. Rules of Engagement for Border Patrol services are the same as they have been; no change.

3. She was asked "if people cross the border will they be shot at?" in response to which she said "We do not have any intention right now to shoot at anyone but they will be apprehended." She then also points out that officers have the right to self defense. She was then asked the follow-up "So, if they (the military or border patrol agents) are shot at they will shoot back?" and she said "No, not necessarily, we would have to work through that."

Here is the link to the videotaped interview, these comments are at about the 2:00 minute mark.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/2...cannot-come-us

WTH is wrong with that position or those comments? In fact, after listening to the interview, it is very, very clear that the CNN characterization was very misleading and seems meant to stir up the precise reaction some of you have had here, as opposed to trying to accurately report what the secretary actually said.

The highlighted statements should be obvious to anyone.

The interview question, missing from the original report and quoted response, adds some context that I noted was missing. Still, while I am neither "excited" nor angered () by the quote, I don't like it--the "right now" qualifier is unnecessarily inflammatory for both sides of the issue (to those on the left, it's evidence of a potentially brutal response; to those on the far right, it feeds the macho "stop 'em at all costs" mentality). Unfortunately, Trump, and occasionally his underlings, use words like sledgehammers rather than scalpels.

[Jeff Lebowski]

FTR, I have no plans to chop some of you to bits with an ax right now.

[Moliere]

FTR, I have no plans to chop some of you to bits with an ax right now.

What if I walked from Houston to Utah and you denied me entry into your house?