- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Oklahoma republican governor criticizes Trump over Texas troops.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:01 pm to dgnx6
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:01 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Other states have sent troops to our state on multiple occasions.
At the request of the Governor? After a hurricane? After our governor specifically said we dont want them here?
0
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:05 pm to loogaroo
If you advocate for states' rights, I don't see how you can argue against this bit from the article:
"Mr. Stitt on Thursday said, “We believe in the federalist system — that’s states’ rights,” adding, “Oklahomans would lose their mind if Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration.”
Mr. Stitt stressed that he supported President Trump’s efforts to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and ensure “law and order” in cities like Chicago and Portland, Ore. But he worried about the precedent that was being set by the guard deployment and how it could be used by a president from another party.
Instead, Mr. Stitt said, Mr. Trump should have moved to federalize the troops in Illinois first."
"Mr. Stitt on Thursday said, “We believe in the federalist system — that’s states’ rights,” adding, “Oklahomans would lose their mind if Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration.”
Mr. Stitt stressed that he supported President Trump’s efforts to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and ensure “law and order” in cities like Chicago and Portland, Ore. But he worried about the precedent that was being set by the guard deployment and how it could be used by a president from another party.
Instead, Mr. Stitt said, Mr. Trump should have moved to federalize the troops in Illinois first."
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:08 pm to Tigergreg
Or stop doing things for optics sake to kiss up to a lame duck.
The NG is not the President's personal goon force....he has ICE for that ans apparently according to reports most are doing it for free right now
The NG is not the President's personal goon force....he has ICE for that ans apparently according to reports most are doing it for free right now
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:10 pm to loogaroo
This is a silly comment, but never fails to grind my gears. In high school 50 years ago the term was always "state rights" not "states rights". The intent being each individual state to have their own rights. Teachers were adamant that we wrote and said it as "state rights".
Can someone with knowledge weigh in on this?
Mr. King would be livid about this.
BTW, Mr. King was exactly like Mr. Hand from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
Can someone with knowledge weigh in on this?
Mr. King would be livid about this.
BTW, Mr. King was exactly like Mr. Hand from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:12 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
If you advocate for states' rights, I don't see how you can argue against this bit from the article:
I really grow weary of your posting.
I do not disagree with using Illinois national guard - now can you show me where spritzer has allowed that or indicated he would be for that?
Has anyone authorized the police to assist?
Or do we have a situation where a state is actively participating in preventing the execution of federal laws ??
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:13 pm to KiwiHead
It’s killing you that he is trying to enforce immigration. You could do s sad haka for them
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:17 pm to dafif
quote:
I do not disagree with using Illinois national guard - now can you show me where spritzer has allowed that or indicated he would be for that?
Did Newsom indicate that he was for federalizing the California National Guard for use in California?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:22 pm to Rip Torn
I don't really care one way or another. But putting military on the street to ostensibly combat crime is optics to make Trump look like a tough guy and he has a faux tough guy in Abbott facilitating him.....and potentially dangerous.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:23 pm to Riverside
quote:
Wrong. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army, the Screaming Eagles as they are known.
The celebration of ignorance on this Board is entertaining. Riverside can't distinguish the 101st from the Arkansas National Guard and gets 7 upvotes.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:33 pm to loogaroo
States are allowed to have their own rules and laws. However, those laws have to follow federal laws guided by the US Constitution. Federal law says you can’t be here illegally. Illinois or Oregon or Austin can’t say otherwise. They are also NOT permitted to interfere with a federal agent in his or her duties to uphold the law. If Chicago doesn’t want troops in its city then allow ICE to safely perform their duties of upholding the law. Really simple.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:41 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Title 10 Status (Federalization): The president can "federalize" a state's National Guard, bringing it under federal control and placing it within the active-duty military chain of command. The president may do this in specific circumstances laid out in the U.S. Code, including:
To suppress insurrection or domestic violence.
To enforce federal laws when state authorities cannot.
For overseas combat and deployment missions.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:48 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma
Another squish. Probably thinks we need to "start a dialogue."
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:50 pm to MrSpock
quote:
In July 2021, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt authorized the deployment of approximately 50 Oklahoma National Guard members to Texas to assist with border security under Operation Lone Star. This mission supported Texas' efforts to address illegal immigration and smuggling.
Texas invited the help. That is very different.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:52 pm to loogaroo
As noted before, Trump needs to expand the Marshal service to include a large enough group to surge these crime hot spots and arrest the perps.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:53 pm to TBoy
Dems are bug states rights guys now? Dems are big into the states having immigration powers. Guarantee you didn’t feel that way in the Texas case. Hypocrite.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:53 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
and potentially dangerous.
How?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:55 pm to High C
quote:
Title 10 Status (Federalization): The president can "federalize" a state's National Guard, bringing it under federal control and placing it within the active-duty military chain of command. The president may do this in specific circumstances laid out in the U.S. Code, including:
To suppress insurrection or domestic violence.
To enforce federal laws when state authorities cannot.
For overseas combat and deployment missions.
The President has the power and authority to do what he is doing...AND I agree that he should be doing it. As someone who is for states' rights, I flinch at bringing National Guard troops from other states to patrol another state.
My opinion is simply that he should federalize and use the Illinois National Guard in Illinois.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:55 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Dems are bug states rights guys now?
Can you cite an example of a democratic president activating a democratic state’s national guard and deploying them against the citizens of a republican majority state?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:00 pm to TBoy
quote:
Can you cite an example of a democratic president activating a democratic state’s national guard and deploying them against the citizens of a republican majority state?
Had we not had Operation Warp Speed, you can bet your arse that would have happened during COVID.
Besides…what are the NG hurting if they stop crime like they did in DC? Are they locking you down in your home or inhibiting your freedom to live?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:01 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Mr. Stitt stressed that he supported President Trump’s efforts to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and ensure “law and order” in cities like Chicago and Portland, Ore. But he worried about the precedent that was being set by the guard deployment and how it could be used by a president from another party.
I support the idea of protecting ICE but not actually doing anything about it. Trump would be sued and an activist judge would stop the deployment, but that just means we gave it a good effort and we wait patiently for the next time we can talk without acting. We shouldn't actually improve the country without support of the uniparty, anyways.
And if the democrats in Illinois refuse to protect federal agents, then we should just tell ICE to leave and allow the illegals to continue draining our resources and killing our people. Whether or not innocents being victimized is irrelevant. That gunshot will hardly sting once they see how principled we are.
Besides, if we actually do something to help the country then democrats might use it to hurt us in the future. They might try to censor us, arrest us, or even kill us, things they would never do if only Republicans would roll over and do nothing while in power this term.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News