This has gone off the deep end but I'll play. 

Only the far, far right wants any kind of civil war and that's only if things go really sideways. I'm talking those who make moderate Libertarians look like they're left of center, or those who like the 'romance' of it. I've watched videos of some of the so-called militia groups in this country and they should be embarrassed. It's been a minute since I was active duty Army and I have more military bearing and discipline than these folks. I do believe there are militia groups who would absolutely cause problems and they would not be so easy to shut down in their own environment.

Anyone who doesn't believe there would be fractures in our military if domestic terrorists were their neighbors...you know nothing. In fact, if you haven't actually served you know nothing but that's a different conversation. Yes, we take an oath to defend the country against all enemies both foreign and domestic, but killing folks in the U.S. is very different than going to the Middle East or some other foreign country. There are folks who couldn't pull the trigger over there and you think they would do it here? 

If I were still AD and things went sideways and my unit was ordered to fire on Americans, unless there was credible intel that a group was a clear and present danger or an imminent threat, I would question it. Anyone who doesn't think this way shouldn't have a weapon and damn sure doesn't belong in the military. Orders that don't fit the above parameters shouldn't be followed. This is true for foreign and domestic situations. 

I'll also say this; I don't care how many people in your friends and family network have served in the military, if you haven't served you don't know [BLEEP]. I'm both a veteran and was married to a career soldier and even those two worlds are completely different. The spouses don't know a damn thing other than what their role is - support. 

This was especially true during 9/11 when everything hit the fan. We were in Germany and I was married to an MP SSG and his unit had very specific orders. The spouses had to bring certain things to our soldiers and there was a possibility that we wouldn't be able to to leave post to go back home due to the threat condition. I packed a go bag and my husband's stuff and was fully prepared to stay while the other wives were saying the Army couldn't tell them what to do and they'll do what they want. That might be true here in the U.S. but not in a foreign country. 

My point is, these women lived and breathed the Army because of their husbands' jobs and they didn't know [BLEEP] so don't say you know something just because your whole family served. Mine did too and I didn't know [BLEEP] until I served.

I wasn't aware I was instigating a pissing contest about service. 

The point on the table was how many of the 2.63 million domestically stationed US military it would require to quell an armed domestic terrorist threat  - and how many would desert rather than follow orders to protect one set of Americans from another. 

You claim your speculation on that is better informed than mine because you served and I did not.
That's fair. 
Makes perfect sense. 

So what is your more insightful speculation? 

If one group of Americans was actively carrying out violence on another group of Americans, would the might of the US military, despite the number of officers and enlisted grappling with a moral predicament, be enough to rapidly and efficiently gain control of the situation? 

---

This has gone off the deep end but I'll play. 

Only the far, far right wants any kind of civil war and that's only if things go really sideways. I'm talking those who make moderate Libertarians look like they're left of center, or those who like the 'romance' of it. I've watched videos of some of the so-called militia groups in this country and they should be embarrassed. It's been a minute since I was active duty Army and I have more military bearing and discipline than these folks. I do believe there are militia groups who would absolutely cause problems and they would not be so easy to shut down in their own environment.

Anyone who doesn't believe there would be fractures in our military if domestic terrorists were their neighbors...you know nothing. In fact, if you haven't actually served you know nothing but that's a different conversation. Yes, we take an oath to defend the country against all enemies both foreign and domestic, but killing folks in the U.S. is very different than going to the Middle East or some other foreign country. There are folks who couldn't pull the trigger over there and you think they would do it here? 

If I were still AD and things went sideways and my unit was ordered to fire on Americans, unless there was credible intel that a group was a clear and present danger or an imminent threat, I would question it. Anyone who doesn't think this way shouldn't have a weapon and damn sure doesn't belong in the military. Orders that don't fit the above parameters shouldn't be followed. This is true for foreign and domestic situations. 

I'll also say this; I don't care how many people in your friends and family network have served in the military, if you haven't served you don't know [BLEEP]. I'm both a veteran and was married to a career soldier and even those two worlds are completely different. The spouses don't know a damn thing other than what their role is - support. 

This was especially true during 9/11 when everything hit the fan. We were in Germany and I was married to an MP SSG and his unit had very specific orders. The spouses had to bring certain things to our soldiers and there was a possibility that we wouldn't be able to to leave post to go back home due to the threat condition. I packed a go bag and my husband's stuff and was fully prepared to stay while the other wives were saying the Army couldn't tell them what to do and they'll do what they want. That might be true here in the U.S. but not in a foreign country. 

My point is, these women lived and breathed the Army because of their husbands' jobs and they didn't know [BLEEP] so don't say you know something just because your whole family served. Mine did too and I didn't know [BLEEP] until I served.

I wasn't aware I was instigating a pissing contest about service. 

The point on the table was how many of the 2.63 million domestically stationed US military it would require to quell an armed domestic terrorist threat  - and how many would desert rather than follow orders to protect one set of Americans from another. 

You claim your speculation on that is better informed than mine because you served and I did not.
That's fair. 
Makes perfect sense. 

So what is your more insightful speculation? 

If one group of Americans was actively carrying out violence on another group of Americans, would the might of the US military, despite the number of officers and enlisted grappling with a moral predicament, be enough to rapidly and efficiently gain control of the situation? 

For my highlighted point; I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular. It's a pet peeve of mine in general. 

As to your bolded point, the numbers say yes, but large numbers don't always equal effective action. 

Sadly, we saw this happen after George Floyd and other black Americans were killed when blm and others took to the streets and literally terrorized people by destroying property, riding through neighborhoods screaming over bullhorns, doxxing people with whom they didn't agree, etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall one instance of the National Guard being deployed to quell the violence. And don't tell me that was not domestic terrorism.

---

This has gone off the deep end but I'll play. 

Only the far, far right wants any kind of civil war and that's only if things go really sideways. I'm talking those who make moderate Libertarians look like they're left of center, or those who like the 'romance' of it. I've watched videos of some of the so-called militia groups in this country and they should be embarrassed. It's been a minute since I was active duty Army and I have more military bearing and discipline than these folks. I do believe there are militia groups who would absolutely cause problems and they would not be so easy to shut down in their own environment.

Anyone who doesn't believe there would be fractures in our military if domestic terrorists were their neighbors...you know nothing. In fact, if you haven't actually served you know nothing but that's a different conversation. Yes, we take an oath to defend the country against all enemies both foreign and domestic, but killing folks in the U.S. is very different than going to the Middle East or some other foreign country. There are folks who couldn't pull the trigger over there and you think they would do it here? 

If I were still AD and things went sideways and my unit was ordered to fire on Americans, unless there was credible intel that a group was a clear and present danger or an imminent threat, I would question it. Anyone who doesn't think this way shouldn't have a weapon and damn sure doesn't belong in the military. Orders that don't fit the above parameters shouldn't be followed. This is true for foreign and domestic situations. 

I'll also say this; I don't care how many people in your friends and family network have served in the military, if you haven't served you don't know [BLEEP]. I'm both a veteran and was married to a career soldier and even those two worlds are completely different. The spouses don't know a damn thing other than what their role is - support. 

This was especially true during 9/11 when everything hit the fan. We were in Germany and I was married to an MP SSG and his unit had very specific orders. The spouses had to bring certain things to our soldiers and there was a possibility that we wouldn't be able to to leave post to go back home due to the threat condition. I packed a go bag and my husband's stuff and was fully prepared to stay while the other wives were saying the Army couldn't tell them what to do and they'll do what they want. That might be true here in the U.S. but not in a foreign country. 

My point is, these women lived and breathed the Army because of their husbands' jobs and they didn't know [BLEEP] so don't say you know something just because your whole family served. Mine did too and I didn't know [BLEEP] until I served.

So when former and current members of special ops from two different branches say they would never fire on Americans it means nothing because I personally didn't serve? That makes no sense.

If I cared to find it I could direct you to your own reply to someone else, I believe it was Mikesez, saying you know something because your whole family served. 

My point was you personally know nothing about the military, its people or how it works if you never served. What someone tells you they would do in a given situation is not the same. If you're married and have a kid did you personally experience labor and delivery just because you happened to be there to support your wife? No, you didn't. 

I never deployed for OIF/OEF so while I know what it is to have served I haven't the slightest idea of what it was like to deploy to those regions. I only know what my now ex husband told me and the aftermath of his deployment.

---

I wasn't aware I was instigating a pissing contest about service. 

The point on the table was how many of the 2.63 million domestically stationed US military it would require to quell an armed domestic terrorist threat  - and how many would desert rather than follow orders to protect one set of Americans from another. 

You claim your speculation on that is better informed than mine because you served and I did not.
That's fair. 
Makes perfect sense. 

So what is your more insightful speculation? 

If one group of Americans was actively carrying out violence on another group of Americans, would the might of the US military, despite the number of officers and enlisted grappling with a moral predicament, be enough to rapidly and efficiently gain control of the situation? 

For my highlighted point; I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular. It's a pet peeve of mine in general. 

As to your bolded point, the numbers say yes, but large numbers don't always equal effective action. 

Sadly, we saw this happen after George Floyd and other black Americans were killed when blm and others took to the streets and literally terrorized people by destroying property, riding through neighborhoods screaming over bullhorns, doxxing people with whom they didn't agree, etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but And don't tell me that was not domestic terrorism.

 I don't recall one instance of the National Guard being deployed to quell the violence.

The states were activated to protect D.C. in the summer of 2020. There was little violence as a result, so they weren't deployed to quell but likely kept order in the streets. Had they been used other times it's as likely those riots would've been subdued also. Of course then it would've played out like Kent State because #orangemanbad.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You guys are so easily distracted. Can't even find common ground on blatant corruption. We're [BLEEP].

---

You guys are so easily distracted. Can't even find common ground on blatant corruption. We're [BLEEP].

I'm not distracted, just waiting it out.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I wasn't aware I was instigating a pissing contest about service. 

The point on the table was how many of the 2.63 million domestically stationed US military it would require to quell an armed domestic terrorist threat  - and how many would desert rather than follow orders to protect one set of Americans from another. 

You claim your speculation on that is better informed than mine because you served and I did not.
That's fair. 
Makes perfect sense. 

So what is your more insightful speculation? 

If one group of Americans was actively carrying out violence on another group of Americans, would the might of the US military, despite the number of officers and enlisted grappling with a moral predicament, be enough to rapidly and efficiently gain control of the situation? 

For my highlighted point; I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular. It's a pet peeve of mine in general. 

As to your bolded point, the numbers say yes, but large numbers don't always equal effective action. 

Sadly, we saw this happen after George Floyd and other black Americans were killed when blm and others took to the streets and literally terrorized people by destroying property, riding through neighborhoods screaming over bullhorns, doxxing people with whom they didn't agree, etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall one instance of the National Guard being deployed to quell the violence. And don't tell me that was not domestic terrorism.

There were actions in some of those riots that absolutely qualify for the term. No doubt.

The situation that was proffered by p_r however was that the government/military could not stop an armed and violent uprising by the right/conservatives.

A scenario that involves one group of Americans killing members of another group of Americans with both their personal arsenals as well as commandeered/stolen weaponry from the US military (supposedly). 

That is a lot different than local governments grappling with whether or not to seek help from the Nat'l guard for a riot that has turned violent beyond their control. 

The FBI has already thwarted a number of plots from various militia groups who intended to kidnap politician(s) that opposed their policy views. As I'm sure you know - these are well armed groups ranging anywhere from dozens of members to thousands. The chatter about mass casualty inducing violence from some of these groups is constantly being monitored and evaluated for veracity by the FBI, DHS and the local and state agencies they collaborate with. 

Government accountability reports state that domestic terrorism investigations have increased by nearly 400% in the past ten years. 

All I've been asserting here is that if a number of these militia groups really decided to take violent action against American citizens and elected officials following another losing bid from Trump - the US military would effectively intervene. (and that "plan" is the subject of the chatter these days from the far right) 

And yes - in my uninformed opinion  -it would be swift and resolute.  Not due to numbers - but due to the stark contrast in technology and sophistication of weaponry and coordination. The ability to monitor and impede the communication of a domestic terror group plus the ability to carry out precision strikes from multiple sources with a broad range of munitions just seems to overwhelmingly tilt the odds in favor of our armed forces. 
Even if 30% of them walk out the door. (36%-40% is the current estimate of "conservative" active military) 

I'll leave it at that.
You're welcome to wave off my estimations all you like. That's just how I see it with my limited insight. 

 It's depressing that these conversations are even being had. 
Americans wanting to kill off another group of Americans that vote differently than them.
Really sad.

---

You guys are so easily distracted. Can't even find common ground on blatant corruption. We're [BLEEP].

Blatant corruption is as old as the hills and doesn't care about politics or ideology. Just money. 

Thought we already covered that.

---

And you can easily tell who's not bothered by the corruption and who is..

---

You guys are so easily distracted. Can't even find common ground on blatant corruption. We're [BLEEP].

We definitely have common ground on blatant corruption.  If you show me a politician with a chance of winning any office who isn't blatantly corrupt I'll gladly vote for that person and tell my neighbors to do the same! No one has found one yet, except at the very local level.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You guys are so easily distracted. Can't even find common ground on blatant corruption. We're [BLEEP].

We definitely have common ground on blatant corruption.  If you show me a politician with a chance of winning any office who isn't blatantly corrupt I'll gladly vote for that person and tell my neighbors to do the same! No one has found one yet, except at the very local level.

I'm not that cynical.  I know there is a lot of corruption of all kinds, and there always has been in every society in all of history, but I don't think every single winning politician is corrupt.  Unless, of course, you are using a very very broad definition of "corrupt."

What definition of "corrupt" are you using that would make every single winning politician "blatantly corrupt?"

---

We definitely have common ground on blatant corruption.  If you show me a politician with a chance of winning any office who isn't blatantly corrupt I'll gladly vote for that person and tell my neighbors to do the same! No one has found one yet, except at the very local level.

I'm not that cynical.  I know there is a lot of corruption of all kinds, and there always has been in every society in all of history, but I don't think every single winning politician is corrupt.  Unless, of course, you are using a very very broad definition of "corrupt."

What definition of "corrupt" are you using that would make every single winning politician "blatantly corrupt?"

A politician that is not corrupt is one who only ever accepted money from people who were 100% transparent about who they are and which policy changes they wanted that politician to try for.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm not that cynical.  I know there is a lot of corruption of all kinds, and there always has been in every society in all of history, but I don't think every single winning politician is corrupt.  Unless, of course, you are using a very very broad definition of "corrupt."

What definition of "corrupt" are you using that would make every single winning politician "blatantly corrupt?"

A politician that is not corrupt is one who only ever accepted money from people who were 100% transparent about who they are and which policy changes they wanted that politician to try for.

So you are saying that if a politician accepts a campaign contribution without knowing where it came from, that makes them corrupt?

---

And you can easily tell who's not bothered by the corruption and who is..

So, you are all bothered by someone changing the discussion from corruption, yet you vote for Trump so you are not actually bothered by the action of corruption, just changing the topic of discussion.

---

A politician that is not corrupt is one who only ever accepted money from people who were 100% transparent about who they are and which policy changes they wanted that politician to try for.

So you are saying that if a politician accepts a campaign contribution without knowing where it came from, that makes them corrupt?

Does that ever actually happen? Let's not get too theoretical here.  They may pretend not to know but they know.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

For my highlighted point; I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular. It's a pet peeve of mine in general. 

As to your bolded point, the numbers say yes, but large numbers don't always equal effective action. 

Sadly, we saw this happen after George Floyd and other black Americans were killed when blm and others took to the streets and literally terrorized people by destroying property, riding through neighborhoods screaming over bullhorns, doxxing people with whom they didn't agree, etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall one instance of the National Guard being deployed to quell the violence. And don't tell me that was not domestic terrorism.

There were actions in some of those riots that absolutely qualify for the term. No doubt.

The situation that was proffered by p_r however was that the government/military could not stop an armed and violent uprising by the right/conservatives.

A scenario that involves one group of Americans killing members of another group of Americans with both their personal arsenals as well as commandeered/stolen weaponry from the US military (supposedly). 

That is a lot different than local governments grappling with whether or not to seek help from the Nat'l guard for a riot that has turned violent beyond their control. 

The FBI has already thwarted a number of plots from various militia groups who intended to kidnap politician(s) that opposed their policy views. As I'm sure you know - these are well armed groups ranging anywhere from dozens of members to thousands. The chatter about mass casualty inducing violence from some of these groups is constantly being monitored and evaluated for veracity by the FBI, DHS and the local and state agencies they collaborate with. 

Government accountability reports state that domestic terrorism investigations have increased by nearly 400% in the past ten years. 

All I've been asserting here is that if a number of these militia groups really decided to take violent action against American citizens and elected officials following another losing bid from Trump - the US military would effectively intervene. (and that "plan" is the subject of the chatter these days from the far right) 

And yes - in my uninformed opinion  -it would be swift and resolute.  Not due to numbers - but due to the stark contrast in technology and sophistication of weaponry and coordination. The ability to monitor and impede the communication of a domestic terror group plus the ability to carry out precision strikes from multiple sources with a broad range of munitions just seems to overwhelmingly tilt the odds in favor of our armed forces. 
Even if 30% of them walk out the door. (36%-40% is the current estimate of "conservative" active military) 

I'll leave it at that.
You're welcome to wave off my estimations all you like. That's just how I see it with my limited insight. 

 It's depressing that these conversations are even being had. 
Americans wanting to kill off another group of Americans that vote differently than them.
Really sad.

---

You guys are so easily distracted. Can't even find common ground on blatant corruption. We're [BLEEP].

Blatant corruption is as old as the hills and doesn't care about politics or ideology. Just money. 

Thought we already covered that.

It truly baffles the mind. Personally I'm only doing violence if it's done against me. As in, they invade my home or my personal space and create a problem. I will 100% defend myself. Otherwise, I've got no beef with anyone who votes, looks, or lives differently than me. 

A lot of these mouthy far right nut jobs are just that - mouthy nut jobs who likely never served their country because they're cowards so they stroke their egos by playing 'protector of the people'. They should really seek mental health care. It's the ones you don't hear about that are the serious ones who could cause legitimate trouble.

---

And you can easily tell who's not bothered by the corruption and who is..

So, you are all bothered by someone changing the discussion from corruption, yet you vote for Trump so you are not actually bothered by the action of corruption, just changing the topic of discussion.

I don't give a [BLEEP] about changing the topic of discussion, never did, that's for you and the rest of your ilk that need your hard drives checked to get offended about.

---

For my highlighted point; I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular. It's a pet peeve of mine in general. 

As to your bolded point, the numbers say yes, but large numbers don't always equal effective action. 

Sadly, we saw this happen after George Floyd and other black Americans were killed when blm and others took to the streets and literally terrorized people by destroying property, riding through neighborhoods screaming over bullhorns, doxxing people with whom they didn't agree, etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but And don't tell me that was not domestic terrorism.

 I don't recall one instance of the National Guard being deployed to quell the violence.

The states were activated to protect D.C. in the summer of 2020. There was little violence as a result, so they weren't deployed to quell but likely kept order in the streets. Had they been used other times it's as likely those riots would've been subdued also. Of course then it would've played out like Kent State because #orangemanbad.

Thanks! 2020 was a charlie foxtrot on every level so I don't recall everything that happened. I did think maybe the NG was activated for something but I couldn't remember.

---

A politician that is not corrupt is one who only ever accepted money from people who were 100% transparent about who they are and which policy changes they wanted that politician to try for.

So you are saying that if a politician accepts a campaign contribution without knowing where it came from, that makes them corrupt?

You would hope these people have folks working on their campaign team who would vet the people who make contributions. You don't know what you don't know but you better hope no one else on your team knew or you'll be blamed regardless.

---

I think Marty's question comes from a place of trying to make or enforce a law against corruption.  If the candidate claims not to know who their rich supporters are, any law against corruption becomes very difficult, if not impossible to enforce. I'm just coming from the perspective of, sure, let's punish the ones who don't even try to hide it, or who accept money from foreigners or from criminals, but also let's not pretend we are ever going to find a politician who is not corrupt or a law that perfectly prevents corruption.  Monasticism would be the closest thing but it has obvious downsides.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think Marty's question comes from a place of trying to make or enforce a law against corruption.  If the candidate claims not to know who their rich supporters are, any law against corruption becomes very difficult, if not impossible to enforce. I'm just coming from the perspective of, sure, let's punish the ones who don't even try to hide it, or who accept money from foreigners or from criminals, but also let's not pretend we are ever going to find a politician who is not corrupt or a law that perfectly prevents corruption.  Monasticism would be the closest thing but it has obvious downsides.

You really think there are no politicians who have principles that they adhere to?  And that every single politician out there will go against their principles because they have financial supporters who ask them to?   I think there are a lot of those, but I don't think it's every single one.  You seem to think every single politician, without exception, is dishonest.

---