- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: US Marines to deploy in Chicago
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:33 pm to AlterEd
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:33 pm to AlterEd
quote:
This idiot labors under the delusion that if a person tells you what is about to happen,
Derp
quote:
there should be US Marines on every street corner, gas station and classroom to protect every citizen from potential violence.
0
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:33 pm to CapnKangaroo
One or two posts on an anonymous internet discussion forum hardly constitutes any representation of the whole. And no such small handful of individual opinions should be what shapes your own personal opinion either.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:37 pm to davyjones
My opinion is that having the US military combating crime in local cities in UnAmerican
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:39 pm to CapnKangaroo
How about assisting?
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:40 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:
My opinion is that having the US military combating crime in local cities in UnAmerican
Putting warriors on baby sitting duty, its gotta be a female thing.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:43 pm to Jbird
quote:
How about assisting?
Also UnAmerican. Pretty sure our founders were against having a standing army for just that reason. Obviously that’s out the window now.
But as I’ve said before I’d be okay with troops assisting ICE and CBP in immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities that refuse to follow federal laws.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:45 pm to CapnKangaroo
I like that
How about protecting federal buildings?
How about protecting federal buildings?
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:47 pm to Jbird
quote:I have seen someone else also mention the word support. I suppose as of now that no one really knows what this would look like. Chicago is being mentioned but would there be other cities, and what is the criteria for being one of these cities.
How about assisting?
I think these are legitimate and rational concerns.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
"Trust Sessions."
Why should someone trust Sessions and what does he have to do with troops in Chicago?
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:49 pm to Jbird
quote:
How about protecting federal buildings?
Sure. It’s the federal governments job to secure and protect federal property.
But that’s not what this discussion has really been about.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:49 pm to Pragmatist2025
They have taken protection of federal buildings etc off the hands of local police.
Frees them up to go get bad guys
Frees them up to go get bad guys
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:49 pm to CapnKangaroo
Well that's what some are doing versus terrorizing citizens.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:50 pm to Jbird
quote:
Well that's what some are doing versus terrorizing citizens.
Maybe so. But many in this thread want way more than that. And that’s what this discussion has been about.
Also seems like a waste of highly trained US Marines to be guarding random low level government buildings if I’m being honest. Just federalize the national guard and use them if that’s all that’s needed.
This post was edited on 12/26/25 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:50 pm to Jbird
quote:
How about protecting federal buildings?
Like the capitol building on January 6,2021?
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:52 pm to CapnKangaroo
Meh like I said the Alaskan retard had to settle for less.
There arent going to be roving infantry units laying waste to large portions of cities in search of bag guys
There arent going to be roving infantry units laying waste to large portions of cities in search of bag guys
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:52 pm to Clark14
Ask you girl Nancy Pelosi about that.
Or the dei retarded chief of police.
Or the dei retarded chief of police.
This post was edited on 12/26/25 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 12/26/25 at 2:57 pm to Jbird
I don’t think a reasonable or rational discussion can even be had on the subject as long as some participants in the conversation continue to refuse to accept that the true and actual suggestion is that a limited federal presence/effort be directed at a specific objective, one that must be extreme enough to warrant such, and lastly that a predetermined definition of “success” be established.
What that all means is there is no “marine on every corner,” wherever they please throughout the entire country even if there be no apparent need at all. That idea of the concept is imagination gone haywire.
And apparently those so vocally and vehemently outraged over any such idea would have to say that in a situation such as a New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the unbridled lawlessness that was not otherwise going to be gotten under control, federal assistance along these same lines was an “un-American” travesty as well. I didn’t see military personnel stick around to present day. Those aren’t difficult thoughts.
What that all means is there is no “marine on every corner,” wherever they please throughout the entire country even if there be no apparent need at all. That idea of the concept is imagination gone haywire.
And apparently those so vocally and vehemently outraged over any such idea would have to say that in a situation such as a New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the unbridled lawlessness that was not otherwise going to be gotten under control, federal assistance along these same lines was an “un-American” travesty as well. I didn’t see military personnel stick around to present day. Those aren’t difficult thoughts.
This post was edited on 12/26/25 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 12/26/25 at 3:02 pm to davyjones
Why do we even want to set this precedent? You know it would be used against you later.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 3:02 pm to davyjones
quote:
I don’t think a reasonable or rational discussion can even be had on the subject as long as some participants in the conversation continue to refuse to accept that the true and actual suggestion is that a limited federal presence/effort be directed at a specific objective, one that must be extreme enough to warrant such, and lastly that a predetermined definition of “success” be established. What that all means is there is no “marine on every corner,” wherever they please throughout the entire country even if there be no apparent need at all. That idea of the concept is imagination gone haywire. And apparently those so vocally and vehemently outraged over any such idea would have to say that in a situation such as a New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the unbridled lawlessness that was not otherwise going to be gotten under control, federal assistance along these same lines was an “un-American” travesty as well. I didn’t see military personnel stick around to present day. Those aren’t difficult thoughts.
Are we comparing post Katrina lawlessness high crime cities today? No reasonable and rational person would.
Are we saying that the sole mission of federal troops would be to secure federal property in high property areas? Because if so then you should tell that to the MANY posters in this thread and other threads that the Marines won’t be policing common crime and taking out gangbangers.
Posted on 12/26/25 at 3:02 pm to Bunk Moreland
Wrong, we just want the laws we have to be enforced.
Page 19 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News