Did trump's threats actually work?

tvstrip

tvstrip

It seems like the protests have gotten a little less violent since the overt threats of military *****.
I'm not saying protesters are actually scared, but there is some truth to not wanting to call the bluff of a madman. If rioting continued at the scale/rate that it started, I doubt he would have shown much restraint.

There are a lot of other factors, like some police ****** using less hostile approaches, and even the protesters focusing on the optics and getting public opinion on their side, which is a lot easier when the news isn't full of images of burning buildings.

To be clear, I am NOT saying that draconian threats should be used by the leader of any free nation. But now that it has, and seeing the results, do you think it was a factor in the toning down of ******** in the past couple days?

And yes, it's a dangerous precedent to set in any democratic nation, which I hope no other one tries again, including the US.
I just hope that trump doesn't think it worked because you know he'll be happy to go to that well again.
 
I don't think it was the threats at all. I think it was the protesters sorting themselves out. Things were pretty chaotic and angry early on, and that gave plenty of opportunity to looters and rioters, but as they've become more organized and focused those people have either lost interest or been pushed out.

I think it would have progressed this way naturally, with or without trump's threats. It also could have calmed down a lot sooner if he would act like a leader and address their concerns instead of hiding in his bunker and teargassing them so he can pretend he's read the bible.
 
I can agree with you that the reality is that it very well sorted itself out. Mass rioting just wasn't sustainable, and the people who were legitimately protesting for the cause won out over those looking to cause chaos.

The problem is that the causal link between the easing of tensions and the threats is hard to prove OR disprove because of the timing.
And most importantly, do you think the POTUS is smart enough to realize, or at least question whether his threats were effective? Because if he isn't, you can bet when temper flare up again, he will likely just jump to this option next time.
 
And in reality these things almost always die down and level out. The intense effort is not sustainable over the long haul. Look at Civil rights. Started really in the mid 1950's and still the fight goes on. Trump can heckle , threaten and kick his little feet and this will still be going on after he is dead. Cultural change takes forever to convert the vast majority to a better way. And don't even mention worldwide changes.
 
tvstrip said:
And most importantly, do you think the POTUS is smart enough to realize, or at least question whether his threats were effective? Because if he isn't, you can bet when temper flare up again, he will likely just jump to this option next time.
Click to expand...

That is a loaded question. I'm going with your statement: "if he isn't".

Tempers will flare again and he'll do what he does best: bloviate. @bubb is correct. It's a natural progression. Think of all of our other flareups over the past decades which have dissipated without the threat of military *****.

This ignores the real question about the constitutionality of using the military for such an action.
 
Why does Trump threaten some groups with military action, yet others get:

“The governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire ... These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”
 
gmase said:
Why does Trump threaten some groups with military action, yet others get:

“The governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire ... These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”
Click to expand...
Depends on the likelihood of them voting for him in Nov. Unlikely to vote for him, threats. Likely to vote for him, kisses.

"This ignores the real question about the constitutionality of using the military for such an action. "

Unlike China where they can move troops from regions far from the troubled areas, here troops are mixed from all over the nation. Will troops open fire if ordered? I will bet that you might find an officer to give the order but firing on unarmed citizens is highly unlikely. ******* orders and the like.
 
bubb said:
Will troops open fire if ordered? I will bet that you might find an officer to give the order but firing on unarmed citizens is highly unlikely. ******* orders and the like.
Click to expand...

Yep. All these people from departments like ICE and the DOJ who have supported the corruption of this administration will hopefully be held accountable once the USA gets a real government again. Plus we saw how many 4 star generals came out against trump recently. Those guys have a lot more loyalty from the members of the defense ****** than a treasonous, failed president.
 
OMG, like, get a clue, you guy-eez. How fuckin' retarded are you? Like, for sure.

When violent death is in the range of outcomes for your job, the little things mean things. But go ahead and keep talking out your asses.

Premium Image Content
Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread
 
So Dick, you are saying if I understand you that you believe that members of the military are so hardened that they will fire on unarmed members of the citizenry full well knowing that somewhere else other troops might be firing on their families. Really? Unless of course you are just messing with everyone. In countries where military units are regional Like China I believe their troops are based, trained and live in a geographic area..You can send troops from the South for example to the North and be reasonably certain that they have few if any friends or ****** there. Ethnic differences also come into play. Tienanmen Square was handled like that. When local troop were reluctant to ****** demonstrator they were move out and others brought in. They had no reason not to follow orders to stop the lawless ones. I just don't see that as viable here. At least now with unarmed folk. Armed insurrection is another thing entirely.
 
gmase said:
Tempers will flare again and he'll do what he does best: bloviate. @bubb is correct. It's a natural progression. Think of all of our other flareups over the past decades which have dissipated without the threat of military *****.
This ignores the real question about the constitutionality of using the military for such an action.
Click to expand...
Well, I learned a new word today :)
Although lets be honest, that's a thing that politicians and lawyers do tend to rely on - either to buy time, hide true intentions, ... or because they don't know what the hell is going on.

I would think even he understands that he can't use the military to slaughter civilians, but the question is, can he refrain from simply threatening that action, either through words or intimidation (i.e. calling them up to be physically present)? Because when he did those actions, they coincided with a (relative) decrease in ********.
 
FOUser#4510856320198a said:

Premium Media Content
Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread
Though, admittedly, these woke pussies cry easy.​
Click to expand...
Sadly though in that movie he was ******* Nazis. Although I guess you could say National Socialism is somewhat liberal in an exaggerated way. It was a type of Socialism I guess. The Nazis did run everything. One way or the other. Of course that is because they tended to **** anyone who opposed them.
 
Last edited:
tvstrip said:
Well, I learned a new word today :)
Although lets be honest, that's a thing that politicians and lawyers do tend to rely on - either to buy time, hide true intentions, ... or because they don't know what the hell is going on.

I would think even he understands that he can't use the military to slaughter civilians, but the question is, can he refrain from simply threatening that action, either through words or intimidation (i.e. calling them up to be physically present)? Because when he did those actions, they coincided with a (relative) decrease in ********.
Click to expand...
I guess whether or not the threats work relates to how much you believe they will be carried out. I could threaten a Board Member here but since I know no one in person the threat is meaningless and can be safely ignored. But if I have a reputation to follow through the threat takes on new meaning.
 
bubb said:
I guess whether or not the threats work relates to how much you believe they will be carried out. I could threaten a Board Member here but since I know no one in person the threat is meaningless and can be safely ignored. But if I have a reputation to follow through the threat takes on new meaning.
Click to expand...
So do you think the general US public, particularly those who are out there physically protesting, truly believe that twump won't give the "All clear" for the police/military to use lethal *****?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BeatMan
The Kavanaugh Assassination Plot is a Leftist Inside Job
Replies
9
Views
4K
John_8581
John_8581
BeatMan
Does Black Lives Matter Create a Hostile Work Environment?
Replies
0
Views
2K
BeatMan
BeatMan
Johan
Trump's peace plan for Middle-East : Give Israel everything they want, give nothing to Palestinians
Replies
5
Views
2K
tvstrip
tvstrip
Johan
Biden would be worst democratic candidate but Bloomberg would be the worst president
Replies
16
Views
5K
Johan
Johan
Straight Shooter
President Trump: Please Help Save Chicago
Replies
7
Views
2K
georges
georges
Back
Top