https://www.reuters.com/world/...-capital-2025-08-11/

No reason he could not have on Jan 6

He's nuts.

I wouldn’t say he’s nuts. DC crime is bad.

But it does show his excuses why he didn’t deploy the guard for 1/6 don’t really hold water.

DC Crime is on a 30 year low.

His to do. Wish he cared as much on Jan 6.

800 have been mobilized at President’s call. They will have police power as the DC Guard maintains.

Is it still wise/advised to carry "robbery money" there?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I wouldn’t say he’s nuts. DC crime is bad.

But it does show his excuses why he didn’t deploy the guard for 1/6 don’t really hold water.

Crime in Washington, DC is at a 30 year low. I'm sure there is still plenty of crime but calling out the NG is a bad idea for so many reasons, it shouldn't even merit a discussion. Starting with, it won't be effective. Just more evidence that trump thinks he is our King, not our President.

He's nuts.

"30 year low" -- well, it's still outrageous -- must have been hell on earth === oh, wait, i looked up the stats -- you can too ....

sort of like "oh, a head on collision at 70 is 30% better than at 100"

outrageous that the same did not use it on the 6th of jan but the followers of the cult of the supreme leader will say it is not the same ...

There is more..according to the Post leaked documents say Trump will establish a «Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force» of NG..

So the military is to take over the police role in US cities..?

Oh wait...who else is doing this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMON

Russia..in best facist style..!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
"30 year low" -- well, it's still outrageous -- must have been hell on earth === oh, wait, i looked up the stats -- you can too ....

sort of like "oh, a head on collision at 70 is 30% better than at 100"

Myrtle Beach, SC has a more dangerous crime rate than Washington DC.

This is just more of trump's effort to flood the zone with bullshit designed to divert attention from the Epstein tarbaby that keeps sticking to him.

Crime in a national capitol is always a bad look. DC has been a black eye in that regard for a long time. What does it have in common with other high crime cities? Mennonite government and Amish population?

. . . yeah, it is a much better look to have armed soldiers wandering around the streets of a capitol . . . gives it that warm and fuzzy Islamabad-type feel.

…I’ll wager…murder victim families wouldn’t…have…minded.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
…I’ll wager…murder victim families wouldn’t…have…minded.

If it saves just one life....

Where have we heard that before?

He seems to be trying to solve a problem by creating another!

First of all, why is crime allowed to flourish?

Second, why is the president is trying to sort it out?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
…I’ll wager…murder victim families wouldn’t…have…minded.

If it saves just one life....

Where have we heard that before?

…Only one ellipses? …lame

Lame would be blindly approving of everything that the orange turd does.

It really does seem that the MAGAt faithful are prepared to rationalize away, justify, excuse or just plain ignore anything the man does regardless of its irrationality. Cult-like obedience.

He's testing the waters.

Next, the nation.

Well, the media hasn’t mentioned Epstein at all today, so I’d say it’s working!

I see he’s heading to Alaska (or ‘Russia’, as he calls it) to meet with his master.

After gifting Putin the Manbij air base in Aleppo, I wonder if maybe he’s handing over Elmendorf? Has anyone there noticed a recent C5 load of vodka being unloaded in the PX?

Steven Sund - former Chief of the United States Capitol Police

just going to lay this, right here
https://x.com/ChiefSund/status/1954975181106970823

quote:

Chief Steven Sund
@ChiefSund
Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people. On January 3, I requested National Guard assistance, but your Sergeant at Arms denied it. Under federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970), I was prohibited from calling them in without specific approval. That same day, Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support, but I was forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority.

On January 6, while the Capitol was under attack and despite my repeated calls, your Sergeant at Arms again denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, “running it up the chain” for your approval.

When I needed assistance, it was denied. Yet when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops.

I’m not going to post again for the up teen time the Federal law that makes the President vested w this authority.

That includes the EO that grants the Sec. of Defense day to day oversight.

Nothing prevented Trump then or now.

I will also restate that Trump has mobilized the DC Guard by his order before TJ address BLM.

Folks can deflect all they want about who should have called out the NG on January 6, but the fact is that Trump could have called out the NG, he elected not to do so because he supported the riot and the insurrectionists. All the rest is spin and bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Folks can deflect all they want about who should have called out the NG on January 6, but the fact is that Trump could have called out the NG, he elected not to do so because he supported the riot and the insurrectionists. All the rest is spin and bullshit.

It is beyond irrational to me that here we have President Trump using his authority directly over the DC Guard. Yet, we have the head of the Texas Contingent trying to make it look like Trump could not, did not have the obligation over the DC Guard to stop the violence designed to to keep him in power.

The bottom line is Trump had a duty, the vested power, and obligation to prevent and stop that violence. He refused to because he wanted that violence to help prevent the election from being certified.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
"30 year low" -- well, it's still outrageous -- must have been hell on earth === oh, wait, i looked up the stats -- you can too ....

sort of like "oh, a head on collision at 70 is 30% better than at 100"

Did you not make your own post that Trump’s action w deploying the DC Guard was stupid?

Here you are in this thread advocating for it.

Try to make up your mind.

If you believe crone is so bad to warrant this use of the President’s power, so be it.

The President can do this. My issue is not whether the President can, or even should.

My issue is for a long time, and one still is, arguing that the President could not do this to confront Han 6 violence. Well, he can, he could, he had before, and he has again.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
"30 year low" -- well, it's still outrageous -- must have been hell on earth === oh, wait, i looked up the stats -- you can too ....

sort of like "oh, a head on collision at 70 is 30% better than at 100"

Did you not make your own post that Trump’s action w deploying the DC Guard was stupid?

Here you are in this thread advocating for it.

Try to make up your mind.

If you believe crone is so bad to warrant this use of the President’s power, so be it.

The President can do this. My issue is not whether the President can, or even should.

My issue is for a long time, and one still is, arguing that the President could not do this to confront Han 6 violence. Well, he can, he could, he had before, and he has again.

What does "crone" have to do with this context?

What's a Han 6?

I have made up my mind, and stated it. Both things can be true.

Ah, the energy of the self-righteous... it must be agonizing, in your head, when people don't fit into your boxes.

I’m sorry. I do not see the word.

Is the President’s action good policy to deal with DC crime?

Or

Do you still believe the action is stupid?

Asked and answered. But to be remedial
1 trumps actions on/with the dc guard is dumb
2 dc crime rate is, itself, a crime

See, both are true. Neither obviates the other. We call these interdependent variables. While they have interaction, neither directly and solely drives the other.

Anything else I can explain?
Water is wet?
Rocks are hard ?
All politicians are crooks?
All human are flawed?

You did not answer the second question.

I did not ask how you felt about dc crime rate.

I asked;

Do you believe the President’s action is good policy to address the crime rate?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I’m sorry. I do not see the word.

Not surprised
So, again, the need for remedial communication

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If you believe crone is so bad ....
Han 6 ....

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
You did not answer the second question.

I did not ask how you felt about dc crime rate.

I asked;

Do you believe the President’s action is good policy to address the crime rate?

Idc what you "asked" and therefore whatever hay you try to make is purely your own strawman

What part of "stupid" is open for debate? Shall I go paste in a definition?

Sometimes it's like talking to a surly teenager

But, since you insist, here's my thread on the matter.
https://forums.accuratereloadi...461009182#3461009182

Standard behavior for the Texas Contingent. The refusal to answer direct questions.

I’ll ask one more time:

Do you believe the President’s actions are good policy to address DC Crime?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Standard behavior for the Texas Contingent. The refusal to answer direct questions.

I’ll ask one more time:

Do you believe the President’s actions are good policy to address DC Crime?

Oh, honey, Texas doesn't hold a patent on not answering a direct question. There a query that you have refused to answer, regarding secdef, when you called him unqualified due to "only" 11 years of experience, and you failed to answer the question as to how long you had been a commonwealth attorney, if time served is a basis for competence

So, whining that someone is somehow deficient for mirror Your exact actions is, well, disingenuous at best.


As for your question, asked and answered. Oh, there is another cool TV law term, "badgering"

what part of "stupid" needs to be explained?

Well, the problem w that is I have presented the EO concerning the DC Gusrs. The Sec of Defense does not have final say over the DC Guard.

The President does.

I’ve been an asst commonwealth attorney for 3 years and and asst county attorney for 7 years.

I wrote my first appellate court brief my second year out. I average 2 appeals a year now. Back in private practice we had multiple appeals going. One changed the law in our Commonwealth.

Unlike, the Texas Contingent, I have been we ran from answering.

Let us try this one last time:

Do you believe the President’s action is good policy to address DC crime?

His action in mobilizing the DC Guard is constitutional. He has done it before. He could not be bothered to intervene in Jan 6.

Simply question.

Until your last post, you did not ask me how long.

You have fallen and slipped into irrational ratings as of late.

Add you to my prayer list brother.

What is sophomoric, unbecoming, and juvenile is not asking the question asked then making your condescending remarks of honey etc.

Why, because you want to yell and deflect instead of answering the question.

Oh, the GOP led funding cuts of 1 billion to DC.

https://wtop.com/liveblog-toda...ing-crime-crackdown/

Trunk administration cut DC security funding 44 percent.

https://wtop.com/dc/2025/08/tr...urity-funding-by-44/


Reuters says 20 million.


https://www.reuters.com/world/...mplaints-2025-08-08/

Those funds sure would help w policing and homelessness.

Looks like yo me the Trump led GOP has not helped the issues in DC.

House Budget Committee also warns of cuts to DC policing from the now passed BBB.
https://democrats-budget.house...-committee-democrats

What part of "stupid" do you need explained?

Your poat is so full of typos that its unreadable as written. MANY people have informed you of this.

It's hilarious when people get mad about little old church lady diminutives, honey

The one above does not. The one before it does not.

You simply do not like the question.

You simply do not want to acknowledge the acts of this Regime and the GOP Congress in reduced funding to address DC concerns.

There is nothing more to say.

The only idiot is the one ranting when confront w a question.

No sir, you don't like the answer. That's a YOU issue.

Honey, your chip on your shoulder is inflaming your ego.

Speaking of idiots,(or insanity)Einstein is accredited with saying "doing the same thing, over and over and expecting different results" is a definition of insanity

Enjoy, sweetheart

Oh, I answered your question, repeatedly, you don't like the answer. I ask again, do you need a definition of stupid? Go talk to a 5 year old, they can help

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:



What is sophomoric, unbecoming, and juvenile is not asking the question asked then making your condescending remarks of honey etc.

Yeah, its so much more "adult" and "becoming" and "mature" to swear and use sexual terms, such as "buggar your self" and "you are stupid" and "you are illiterate " ...all hallmarks of a mature, poised adult, honey. Counterpoint, if you take offense at little old church lady endearments and diminutives, you should really spend some time in introspection.

I have NEVER used such terms with you, further, I laugh at "adults" that use foul language in the course of common communication. Vulgar men should not be taken seriously,

Attempting to control a conversation with YOUR chosen words is highly manipulative. Again, might be time for introspection

Thanks for the offer for having me in your prayers, I am CERTAIN you meant that almost as much as when I say "bless your heart" but save your breath, I don't believe the same myths and fables you do. Speaking of which, I'll ask again, as you have set this tone "do you often use your failed book in the course of your practice?"

Though a non-party conservative and retired
military/ Federale, will have to go partially with jeff. on this one. The NG is for floods, riots, and maybe mass looting prevention. As a stopgap measure
for "crime", NG activation is unnecessary and heavy handed. If deployment was ONLY series 95s (Military Police) ala mufti with navy blue blazers, body armor and MP badges: OK.
But not NG cooks, clerks and every other MOS.
It also just might be in violation partially of posse comitatus in this instance.

Then there is playing into the hands of the leftists who could and will shout: "See, look at the uniformed Fascists in our peaceful D.C. streets." NOT well thought out, IMHO.

https://youtu.be/5wxUQil3rCs?si=xaRw5_IAKYy_LlY7

Understanding Trump’s Takeover in Washington, D.C. | Explainer

https://youtu.be/pMIxnpEk1JM?si=0NDYtHOe_lEVwOlu

Trump’s federal takeover of Washington, D.C.