OP-ED Schlichter: Would the Military Side with Leftist Tyranny or with America? (VERY disturbing read - Dennis)

Would the Military Side with Leftist Tyranny or with America?
Kurt Schlichter | Posted: Aug 13, 2020 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

The Democrats are wargaming how to steal the 2020 election, and after Grandpa Badfinger selected Lady Mac (Willie) Brown, their last best hope seems to be the military marching in and removing Donald Trump from the White House after he wins and they refuse to accept the election results. But will the military actually do the bidding of the coterie of Marxist Muppet masters with their fingers, ironically, up inside Joe Biden like he is a crusty, senile Kermit?

Which he is, except the real Mr. Miss Piggy isn’t a manifestly mentally incompetent socialist Trojan Frog.

And don’t even get me started on his veep, Botoxic K.

Between the perma-coup against the American people, the mainstream media’s myriad and shameless lies, and the Democrats’ election fraud agenda (including the Golden Ticket to anarchy that is mail-in voting), it is absolutely clear that the Democrats will not accept Donald Trump’s impending victory. It is also clear that their plan is to sow chaos when they lose, with outright ballot box-stuffing, riots, and endless counts and recounts, so that they can obscure Trump’s win enough to create a patina of fake doubt about the result. Then they will rush into some Hawaiian courtroom and get some Hawaiian judge to announce that the Delaware Basement Crustacean won the election. The idea is to then have a deus ex militaria where somehow the establishment gets reestablished forever at gunpoint. And the liberal elite is said establishment.

But it’s not completely crazy, unfortunately, to consider whether the military, or at least a portion of it, would cooperate in a liberal attempt to seize power. Here’s the troubling truth: the generals will absolutely fall in line with the liberal elite.

“Wait,” the reader asks. “Aren’t generals and majors and stuff conservative?”

Well, in temperament, yes. But they are not conservative in terms of American politics. And for that reason, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that many of them would take the side of the leftist establishment if called upon to resolve a disputed election instead of demurring to the politicians to decide the matter themselves.

Wow. Just writing that is scary. But these are scary times, and we are blessed with what Instapundit Glenn Reynolds tells Americans is “the worst ruling class in your history.” The generals are absolutely a part of that failed caste.

The generals – a term I’ll use to describe the majority of senior active duty officers (Colonel/Captain O6 and up; note that reserve officers have a slightly different perspective, being civilians most of the time) – are creatures of the establishment. Yes, it is absolutely true that many of them showed great courage in battle against foreign enemies and made great personal sacrifices. It is also true that in the culture war they have been entirely AWOL. They are terrified of crossing the establishment by doubting its preferred mores, and that is why they accept every bizarre modern SJW trope regardless of its effect on combat readiness. They will charge a jihadi with a bayonet and wet themselves in the face of an irate Kirsten Gillibrand. It’s weird, but it’s true.

Here, Trump and his populist movement are agents of rapid and disruptive change. The military, in which these generals grew up and which gives them their identities, is the least disruptive institution in American society. The lengthy and laudable tradition of civilian authority over the military, as well as the hierarchical nature of the military itself, makes it instinctively against rapid, disruptive change.

Though the Democrats have moved left, they maintain a headlock on the institutions, and the institutions are what the generals are loyal to even if the leaders of those institutions have morphed into rabidly anti-American aspiring dictators. To embrace Trump and populism is to repudiate the whole establishment hothouse that grew their power and prestige. They would be opposing themselves.

Look at CNN and see the endless parade of fully semi-automatic Obama generals babbling like idiots about how Trump is ruining their sweet gigs, though they don’t put it quite that way. Look at the appalling Chairman of the Joint Chiefs apologizing for following the elected president’s lead. And, especially, look at their horror that America is ending those endless wars.

Those are the generals, and they have the elite’s back, not yours. A general who said “all lives matter” or refused to buy the ridiculous but fashionable notion that America’s greatest strategic threat is the weather a century hence or uttered some other heresy would not be a general much longer – and certainly not cash in on a sweet post-retirement gig at Boeing.

But most Americans don’t see that. Because America remembers the military of 30 years ago that could actually win a war in a reasonable period of time (as we did in Desert Storm), today’s generals benefit from residual respect for yesterday’s Cold War military. Americans are unaware of the devastated culture cultivated by our military senior leadership. Here’s the ruinous legacy of today’s generals: Afghanistan is a disaster and still not won, ships colliding and catching fire due to gross failures of leadership, boats of sailors on tape whimpering as they surrender to the Iranian Navy, senior officers leaking to the media, colonels, generals and admirals getting court-martialed, massive prosecutorial misconduct by JAGs, woke West Point (which recently graduated an open communist), and troops kneeling before rioters. It’s a military that puts Diversity Day before D-Day.

Unfortunately, the first 24 hours of war with China would make the rot agonizingly apparent – at the cost of thousands of our warriors’ precious lives. They’ll deny it, of course, and I fervently hope I’m wrong. But I fear I’m not, because none of the incentives in today’s military are aimed toward achieving combat readiness instead of achieving ideological conformity.

So, count on the active duty generals to fall in line when the New York Times trumpets the Democrats’ line that Trump’s victory is illegitimate. That’s the voice of the people they really take their orders from.

Then what?

Good question, but remember that the military is not just the generals. The military includes the middle-grade and junior officers and non-commissioned officers as well as the enlisted troops. And while the woke poison has spread into these ranks too, there is a real question about whether those leaders, who are where the tank treads meet the road, would follow an order to make war on American citizens.

That’s a harsh way of putting it, but making war is what the military does – it uses fire and maneuver to destroy the enemy, and to the liberal establishment, those of us who refuse to allow the election victory of our candidate to be undone will be the enemy. Intervention by the military necessarily means America forces killing American patriots.

And no, the New York Times’ Marxist newsroom will not be exploding in protests over that domestic use of military force; it will be loudly cheering it.

We know we cannot trust this generation of generals to stand up for freedom, but I’d like to think that a good portion of the troops would refuse to enter civilian politics in favor of the anti-American left. Yet, I would have also liked to think that we’d never see law enforcement officers eagerly obeying the fascist decrees of liberal poohbahs. The sight of overeager Barney Fifes hassling citizens about piehole thongs made it clear that for some people oaths come behind the giddy joy of power and keeping their pensions.

So, the question is, what will our troops do? Will they make war on the American people so that Basement Biden’s puppet masters can turn America into Venezuela 2: The Quickening? Or will they say “No” to imposing a leftist dictatorship, which is what the Democrats’ Revenge Agenda proposes? Our troops are loved in large part because they don’t take a side in domestic politics; if they do, and turn on the people for the benefit of a senile old puppet and the Truancy Avenger, well, that affection evaporates.

Sadly, we cannot rely on the generals to not make the error. Let’s just hope that the danger is mooted because Trump’s margin of victory is so great that the Democrats cannot cheat.

Currently there are 12 to 13 support personnel for every SOLDIER. I do not say that to disparage support personnel, they are necessary, but as far as actual fighting, they don't generally do any fighting.

As to who will do what - I have no idea. Prepare to be disappointed however. It might not be your military any longer, and I feel pretty sure it is not the military you thought it was.

Sobering. Sad. Frightening. In 1973 the US military became an all volunteer force. I was there and this is what I saw. The country was fatigued by war. WWII, then shortly Korea, and finally Vietnam. Civil unrest was worse then than now. We are now dealing with the children and grandchildren of the people that created that unrest back then. The government (then deep state) floated the idea of an all volunteer force for not quite a year. Many people especially in fly over country were opposed to this. We countered that an all volunteer force would be quite likely to follow a General's orders or those of a charismatic leader to conquer patriots. That an army of draftees would have connections to the people back home would refuse to take up arms against their neighbors. The scenario in this article, because of an all volunteer force, is entirely possible. Also, do not forget that many of the officers are graduates of the elitist's juvenile and adolescent military academys back east playing their role in the swamp that it is. So here we are.

Jonas Parker said:

Would the Military Side with Leftist Tyranny or with America?

Click to expand...

Most likely they would just follow orders. Whatever those orders happened to be.

The Dems won't go full retard unless they have control of the nation's assets , as the Dems send better men than themselves, to do the dirty work.

some will, some won't.
50/50 split

50/50 would actually be better than I give them credit for. But maybe I am a pessimist.

As someone else pointed out, the junior personnel have already been thoroughly "indoctrinated" - High School through College. I shudder to think what today's military would do!

The military will do whatever the commander tells them to do. Will they shoot citizens? Yes, they already have, Kent State comes to mind.
Mike

Interesting. The hard left and the hard right both think they "are" America.
They are not.
Most service members are not hard left OR right. Most are middle of the road, with some being almost apolitical.
Most disapprove of the antics of extremists on both sides. Most weep for what those and both sides are doing to the country.
To answer the question, if called upon to act in this country, the military would most likely act for the military and the status quo and not go over to either side.
If push comes to shove, neither the hard left or right is going to like what the military does.

raven said:

some will, some won't.
50/50 split

Click to expand...

This ^^^^^

And therefore chaos. Any lack of cohesion is deadly to a regimented force or unit.

Lt. says do this, senior NCOs say do that, blacks support this, browns and whites support that...

Division, mistrust, and confusion will render any group of Marines, Soldiers, Etc ineffective.

That’s how the Deep State wants it too!

Tripod said:

The military will do whatever the commander tells them to do. Will they shoot citizens? Yes, they already have, Kent State comes to mind.
Mike

Click to expand...

Agree! Whether it be Trump or Biden....

Tripod said:

The military will do whatever the commander tells them to do. Will they shoot citizens? Yes, they already have, Kent State comes to mind.
Mike

Click to expand...

That was then, this is now.

Just for counter point perspective:

Youngest son was Calvary Scout, and under Obama was told many times from Capt. (company commander) on down that they would not take up arms against American citizens. In the sense of an uprising, or coup type of thing. Consider him a millennialist. Doing policing work against insurrectionist, probably doesn't fall into that category.

And under Trump it may be different. ???????

AS has been said probably be 50/50 and will depend on ideology/beliefs of individuals, and not orders. Just hope conservative soldiers bring their tanks with them.

Just like the cops arrested that lawyer couple in St. Louis, they knew it was wrong but still did the leftist bidding...

Tripod said:

The military will do whatever the commander tells them to do. Will they shoot citizens? Yes, they already have, Kent State comes to mind.
Mike

Click to expand...

Refresher course on Kent state:

Kent State protest activity, 1966–1970[edit]
During the 1966 Homecoming Parade, protesters walked dressed in military paraphernalia with gas masks.[12]

In the fall of 1968, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and a campus Black Student Organization staged a sit-in to protest police recruiters on campus. Two hundred fifty black students walked off campus in a successful amnesty bid for the protesters.[12]

On April 1, 1969, SDS members attempted to enter the administration building with a list of demands where they clashed with police. In response, the university revoked the Kent State SDS chapter charter. On April 16 a disciplinary hearing involving two of the protesters resulted in a confrontation between supporters and opponents of SDS. The Ohio State Highway Patrol was called and fifty-eight people were arrested. Four SDS leaders spent six months in prison as a result of the incident.[12]

On April 10, 1970, Jerry Rubin, a leader of the Youth International Party (also known as the Yippies), spoke on campus. In remarks reported locally, he said: "The first part of the Yippie program is to kill your parents. They are the first oppressors." Two weeks after that, Bill Anthrell, an SDS member and former student, distributed flyers to an event in which he said he was going to napalm a dog. The event turned out to be an anti-napalm teach-in.[12]

________________________________________________________

City officials and downtown businesses received threats, and rumors proliferated that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university. Several merchants reported they were told that if they did not display anti-war slogans, their businesses would be burned down. Kent's police chief told the mayor that according to a reliable informant, the ROTC building, the local army recruiting station, and post office had been targeted for destruction that night.[15] There were unconfirmed rumors of students with caches of arms, plots to spike the local water supply with LSD, and of students building tunnels for the purpose of blowing up the town's main store.[16] Satrom met with Kent city officials and a representative of the Ohio Army National Guard. Because of the rumors and threats, Satrom feared that local officials would not be able to handle future disturbances.[9] Following the meeting, Satrom made the decision to call Rhodes and request that the National Guard be sent to Kent, a request that was granted immediately.

_____________________________________________________________

Information developed by an FBI investigation of the ROTC building fire indicates that, of those who participated actively, a significant portion weren't Kent State students. There is also evidence to suggest that the burning was planned beforehand: railroad flares, a machete, and ice picks are not customarily carried to peaceful rallies.[18]

Click to expand...

There were reports that some Kent firemen and police officers were struck by rocks and other objects while attempting to extinguish the blaze. Several fire engine companies had to be called because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[19][20][21] The National Guard made numerous arrests, mostly for curfew violations, and used tear gas; at least one student was slightly wounded with a bayonet.[22]

_______________________________________________________________

Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio National Guard (ARNG), the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students. The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.[28]

____________________________________________________________________

The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus patrolman Harold Rice[29] riding in a National Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, striking one campus patrolman and forcing the Jeep to retreat.[9]

Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When most of the crowd refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some launched a second volley of rocks toward the Guard's line and chanted "Pigs off campus!" The students lobbed the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen, who wore gas masks.

When it became clear that the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G, with bayonets fixed on their M1 Garand rifles, began to advance upon the hundreds of protesters. As the guardsmen advanced, the protesters retreated up and over Blanket Hill, heading out of the Commons area. Once over the hill, the students, in a loose group, moved northeast along the front of Taylor Hall, with some continuing toward a parking lot in front of Prentice Hall (slightly northeast of and perpendicular to Taylor Hall). The guardsmen pursued the protesters over the hill, but rather than veering left as the protesters had, they continued straight, heading toward an athletic practice field enclosed by a chain link fence. Here they remained for about 10 minutes, unsure of how to get out of the area short of retracing their path: they had boxed themselves into a fenced-in corner. During this time, the bulk of the students congregated to the left and front of the guardsmen, approximately 150 to 225 ft (46 to 69 m) away, on the veranda of Taylor Hall. Others were scattered between Taylor Hall and the Prentice Hall parking lot, while still others were standing in the parking lot, or dispersing through the lot as they had been previously ordered.

While on the practice field, the guardsmen generally faced the parking lot, which was about 100 yards (91 m) away. At one point, some of them knelt and aimed their weapons toward the parking lot, then stood up again. At one point the guardsmen formed a loose huddle and appeared to be talking to one another. They had cleared the protesters from the Commons area, and many students had left, but some stayed and were still angrily confronting the soldiers, some throwing rocks and tear gas canisters. About 10 minutes later, the guardsmen began to retrace their steps back up the hill toward the Commons area. Some of the students on the Taylor Hall veranda began to move slowly toward the soldiers as they passed over the top of the hill and headed back into the Commons.


Map of the shootings
During their climb back to Blanket Hill, several guardsmen stopped and half-turned to keep their eyes on the students in the Prentice Hall parking lot. At 12:24 p.m.,[30] according to eyewitnesses, a sergeant named Myron Pryor turned and began firing at the crowd of students with his .45 pistol.[31] A number of guardsmen nearest the students also turned and fired their rifles at the students. In all, at least 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons, using an estimate of 67 rounds of ammunition. The shooting was determined to have lasted 13 seconds, although John Kifner reported in The New York Times that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer."[32] The question of why the shots were fired remains widely debated.


Photo taken from the perspective of where the Ohio National Guard soldiers stood when they opened fire on the students

Bullet hole in Solar Totem #1 sculpture[33] by Don Drumm caused by a .30 caliber round fired by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State on May 4, 1970
The adjutant general of the Ohio National Guard told reporters that a sniper had fired on the guardsmen, which remains a debated allegation. Many guardsmen later testified that they were in fear for their lives, which was questioned partly because of the distance between them and the students killed or wounded. Time magazine later concluded that "triggers were not pulled accidentally at Kent State." The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided probing the question of why the shootings happened. Instead, it harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, but it concluded that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."[34]

__________________________________________________________

In 2007 Alan Canfora, one of the wounded students, located a static-filled copy of an audio tape of the shootings in a Yale library archive. The original 30-minute reel-to-reel audio tape recording was made by Terry Strubbe, a Kent State communications student who turned on his recorder and put its microphone in his dormitory window overlooking the campus.[69] At that time, Canfora asserted that an amplified version of the tape reveals the order to shoot, "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!". Lawrence Shafer, a guardsman who admitted he fired during the shootings and was one of those indicted in the 1974 federal criminal action with charges subsequently dismissed, told the Kent-Ravenna Record-Courier newspaper in May 2007: "I never heard any command to fire. That's all I can say on that." Referring to the assertion that the tape reveals the order, Shafer went on to say, "That's not to say there may not have been, but with all the racket and noise, I don't know how anyone could have heard anything that day." Shafer also said that "point" would not have been part of a proper command to open fire.[69]

Just as a point to think on: Is this not what many are saying should be done in Portland?

TerryK said:

Interesting. The hard left and the hard right both think they "are" America.
They are not.
Most service members are not hard left OR right. Most are middle of the road, with some being almost apolitical.
Most disapprove of the antics of extremists on both sides. Most weep for what those and both sides are doing to the country.
To answer the question, if called upon to act in this country, the military would most likely act for the military and the status quo and not go over to either side.
If push comes to shove, neither the hard left or right is going to like what the military does.

Click to expand...

Terry you say, "Most disapprove Of the antics of extremists on both sides." Just curious what antics on our side are you talking about. So far I can only see what they have done and are now doing.

"YES"

Unfortunately, the services are as toxic as any ivory tower or other government bureaucracy these days. At least, that is the impression I have of them over the last few years. ("management" not the regular folk)

How or why belongs on another thread, but- I will say that as a good woman, I was busy at home, making babies and loving my men. It wasn't under my or my sister's watch that this abomination occurred.

:: sets the stirrin' paddle aside ::

The question to ask them is will they put up with all out illegal marxist anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-rule of law government or fight to remove it.

Didn't Obama dismiss or force into retirement hundreds of officers?

A better question: Would the military side with leftist tyranny, rightist tyranny or America?
Answer: None of the above if "military" means Army or Air Force. It applies to the Navy also, by Navy regulations. The National Guard may be called for domestic purposes; in that case, the answer is "America."
See Posse Comitatus Act:
18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152: Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

TerryK said:

Interesting. The hard left and the hard right both think they "are" America.
They are not.
Most service members are not hard left OR right. Most are middle of the road, with some being almost apolitical.
Most disapprove of the antics of extremists on both sides. Most weep for what those and both sides are doing to the country.
To answer the question, if called upon to act in this country, the military would most likely act for the military and the status quo and not go over to either side.
If push comes to shove, neither the hard left or right is going to like what the military does.

Click to expand...

Supposed to be apolitical but drive through a base hospital parking lot like the one on Pendleton and take note of what bumper stickers you see.

subnet said:

Supposed to be apolitical but drive through a base hospital parking lot like the one on Pendleton and take note of what bumper stickers you see.

Click to expand...

Before Covid I was on the base every week. My wife would shop and I'd be at the gym.
Now only once a month, and I shop with the wife since the gym isn't open to me until all this is over.
We go to Mayport/Jax Navy bases, Patrick AFB and McDill in Tampa.
2019 polls of the military conducted by Miltary Times put the approve /disapprove of current administration at about 50%. That is still better than it was under Obama.

Hognutz said:

Just like the cops arrested that lawyer couple in St. Louis, they knew it was wrong but still did the leftist bidding...

Click to expand...

Yup. Keep following orders until there's nothing left for you to lose.

Hognutz said:

Just like the cops arrested that lawyer couple in St. Louis, they knew it was wrong but still did the leftist bidding...

Click to expand...

Very good point, and sobering to think about.

The military is a general cross-section of the country....Not sure if that's good or bad.

TerryK said:

Before Covid I was on the base every week. My wife would shop and I'd be at the gym.
Now only once a month, and I shop with the wife since the gym isn't open to me until all this is over.
We go to Mayport/Jax Navy bases, Patrick AFB and McDill in Tampa.
2019 polls of the military conducted by Miltary Times put the approve /disapprove of current administration at about 50%. That is still better than it was under Obama.

Click to expand...

So no cars/trucks flying the lefty propaganda there?
Strange.....

Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.

Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.
For weeks, there have been news reports and commentary on whether President Trump will "accept" the results of November's election. The president started it on July 19 when he was asked, on Fox News Sunday, "Can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?"

"I have to see," Trump said. "I have to see. No, I'm not going to just say yes. I'm not going to say no, and I didn't last time, either."

The answer set off a long trail of headlines: "Trump declines to say whether he will accept November election." "Trump won't commit to accepting result if he loses election." "Trump not ready to commit to election results if he loses." The president has continued to stir the pot since then, most notably with a tweet asking whether, because of potential problems with voting by mail, the Nov. 3 election should be postponed.

So there is much discussion of Trump and the election results. But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the election if Joe Biden loses? A new reportsuggests the answer could be no.

The report comes from a secretive group called the Transition Integrity Project. A bipartisan, anti-Trump organization, TIP was created last year by Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks and historian and think tanker Nils Gilman, "out of concern that the Trump administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process."

In June, TIP organized a meeting of 100 "former high-ranking government officials, senior political campaigners, nationally prominent journalists and communications professionals, social movement leaders, and experts on politics, national security, democratic reform, election law, and media." The project originally kept the names of the 100 secret, but about 40 have now agreed to be publicly identified. (The rest remain anonymous.) Among the publicly known names are some of the most ardently anti-Trump voices in media and politics. Norm Eisen, who served as outside counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during impeachment, is part of the group, as is John Podesta, the former Hillary Clinton campaign chair who played key roles in the Obama and Bill Clinton White Houses, and former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile. There is former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, now seen denouncing the president on cable TV, and another former governor whose name remains secret. To make the group bipartisan, there are several members from Never Trump Republican and former Republican ranks: Reed Galen, a key organizer of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, David Frum, and others.

The purpose of the June meeting was to war-game scenarios for the 2020 election and its immediate aftermath. What would actually happen if the results were contested or not known for weeks after Election Day? Sixty-seven people took active part in the games, while the rest observed the action and offered feedback. The results are described in a 22-page report, "Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition," released Monday.

The TIP members divided into several groups. There was a Trump campaign group and a Biden campaign group. A Republican officeholders group and a Democratic officeholders group. A career government officials group. A media group. Finally, there was a group representing the public (played in the game by pollsters).

They worked through four election scenarios.

One of the scenarios involved Biden winning a clear victory in both the popular vote and Electoral College. In that scenario, Trump originally alleged voter fraud but spent most of the transition preparing to return to private business and pardoning family members. The short version of how the game came out was that Trump lost and left office. Biden was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021.

Another scenario posited a narrow Biden victory, in which the Democrat's popular vote margin was less than 1 percentage point, giving him a winning 278 electoral votes. In that case, Trump did not concede defeat and instead engaged in a "large and coordinated disinformation campaign primarily focused on the legitimacy of the mail-in ballots." The Biden campaign organized massive street protests around the country, protests that included "violent skirmishes and vandalism." Biden's electoral victory was certified, but "Trump refused to leave the White House." He spent his final days as president burning incriminating evidence and making plans to start a new network, TRUMP TV — two activities that suggested he planned to give up the presidency. On Jan. 20, 2021, the Secret Service escorted Trump out of the White House. That section of the report is poorly written, and it is not entirely clear whether the Secret Service actually had to escort Trump out of the White House or simply threatened to escort him out. In any event, Trump left. The report describes the transition as "uneasy and combative but ultimately successful." The bottom line was that Trump lost and left office. Biden was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021.

The project's participants came up with a bizarre third scenario in which the election results came down to Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina. Florida went to Trump, and North Carolina went to Biden, leaving Michigan as the state that would decide the presidency. But at that point, in Michigan, "a rogue individual destroyed a large number of ballots believed to have supported Biden." It's not clear if that was decisive, but in any event, Trump was left with a narrow victory in the Electoral College. (The project's report does not say who won the national popular vote in this scenario.) Then the Democratic governor of Michigan "used this abnormality as justification to send a separate, pro-Biden set of electors to DC." At that point, "neither campaign was willing to accept the result, and called on their supporters to turn out in the streets to sway the result." Neither side prevailed. At the end of the game, with the sides unable to agree on the legitimacy of the outcome, there was no clear president on Jan. 20, 2021. The report did not speculate on what happened after that.

The final scenario was the only one that posited a clear Trump victory. Biden, like Hillary Clinton before him, won the popular vote (in this case, the margin was a decisive 52% to 47%). But Trump won the Electoral College victory with 286 electoral votes. In other words, Trump was the clear winner of the presidency. Biden conceded defeat on election night but then withdrew his concession as Democratic anger grew over another election in which the winner lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. The Biden campaign pushed the Democratic governors of Michigan and Wisconsin to disregard Trump's victory, overrule their state legislatures, and send Biden electors to Washington. House Democrats refused to recognize Trump's Electoral College victory. The Biden campaign also came up with what appears to be a demand for concessions in exchange for recognition of Trump's victory: Trump could take office if the Electoral College were eliminated, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico were given statehood, and California was divided into five states to create more Democratic senators. Otherwise, California, Oregon, and Washington state would secede from the union. In the end, the standoff "remained unresolved," and Inauguration Day "arrived without a single president-elect." The scenario ended with: "It was unclear what the military would do in this situation."

So those are the four scenarios. In only one did a candidate win a clear victory and the opposing candidate refuse to accept the result. And the loser who refused to accept the result was Biden — not Trump. That is precisely the opposite of the Trump-won't-accept-results speculation that has dominated the media in recent weeks. Even though Trump clearly won the presidency in that scenario, "the game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails."

The report gave some reasons why Democrats would be willing to defy the constitutional structure of American presidential elections to put Biden in the White House. The scenario game-playing "revealed that for many Democrats and key Democratic constituencies, this election represents an existential crisis, the last chance to stop a rapid and potentially irreversible U.S. decline into authoritarianism and unbridled nativism," the report says. "Some participants in the exercises observed that if former Vice President Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be political pressure from the Democratic Party's rank and file and from independent grassroots organizations to prevent a second Trump term." Prevent a second Trump term, that is, even in the face of a clear and legitimate Trump victory.

When one side believes the stakes are so high as to be existential — a last chance to stop authoritarianism and unbridled nativism — then virtually any means are justified to prevent the other side from winning. One lesson of the Transition Integrity Project game-playing is that today, less than 100 days from the election, some of the president's most passionate opponents believe Democrats might willingly throw the Constitution aside in their desire to put an end to the Trump presidency.

Squib said:

This ^^^^^

And therefore chaos. Any lack of cohesion is deadly to a regimented force or unit.

Lt. says do this, senior NCOs say do that, blacks support this, browns and whites support that...

Division, mistrust, and confusion will render any group of Marines, Soldiers, Etc ineffective.

That’s how the Deep State wants it too!

Click to expand...

Ah, yes...And THAT makes them much less effective against armed and angry patriots, who outnumber them greatly, and many of whom are vets.

Well, I’ve heard all I need to hear (or read, that is).

Never had any doubt the communists will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get their way.

The list of people who came out of the closet in the opposition group reads like a ‘Who's, who’ list of Pedo island flight list!

Clinton, Podesta? Really?

Ref Kent State.

Either Chanel 8 or 19 got a tape and has forensic analysis done and found a shot fired seconds before the Guard fired.

I'll have to hunt for the story. There was a problematic informant (drug) who was likely the shooter.

subnet said:

The Dems won't go full retard unless they have control of the nation's assets , as the Dems send better men than themselves, to do the dirty work.

Click to expand...

The oath requires defense of the constitution and the republic for which it stands. There is the obligation not o follow orders considered unconstitutional. Then there is the interpretation of such orders. Sadly the military would be pretty much split in two. Most of the officers would follow orders, half the rank and file would be hesitant or refuse if pushed enough.

Keep the numbers handy.

3 million LEO & .mil.

20 million vets, 37 million hunters with 11 million deer hunters.

Yes, the upper echelon are quislings. Knew that was what he was going to say. It's been obvious for decades.
As for the grunts....some will and some won't. I knew that too.

Tripod said:

The military will do whatever the commander tells them to do. Will they shoot citizens? Yes, they already have, Kent State comes to mind.
Mike

Click to expand...

I don't that is a fair representation. Back then guardsmen didn't go to basic training. They just threw a uniform on them and gave them a gun.

Sentinel said:

I don't that is a fair representation. Back then guardsmen didn't go to basic training. They just threw a uniform on them and gave them a gun.

Click to expand...

In 1965 i was taking basic training in Fort Bragg NC. The national guard and army reserve troops trained with us for eight weeks.

Tripod said:

In 1965 i was taking basic training in Fort Bragg NC. The national guard and army reserve troops trained with us for eight weeks.

Click to expand...

Tripod, you would be correct. I did a lousy job of writing that. I think the term used was "Rep 64." I was told that was when the guardsmen started going through basic training. But that means many NCOs and some enlisted had never been to anything other than annual training.

Plus, didn't audio show that, just before the Guard started firing, there was shot taken at them or in the crowd that got the Guard ready to fire back?

Squib said:

This ^^^^^

And therefore chaos. Any lack of cohesion is deadly to a regimented force or unit.

Lt. says do this, senior NCOs say do that, blacks support this, browns and whites support that...

Division, mistrust, and confusion will render any group of Marines, Soldiers, Etc ineffective.

That’s how the Deep State wants it too!

Click to expand...

And that makes any unit combat ineffective. If that should happen the military will fracture along with the rest of society. Don’t fear the military with what they may or may not do. For most of us it will be the anarchy in the streets and your hometown crazies you have to worry about.

Even though I’m rural and it isn’t too bad yet every day now there are multiple police calls for suicidal people, people on illicit drugs and mentally disturbed off their meds. For most of us if we don’t live in urban areas this will be our primary threat.

I just got out, want to say I have a good sense of where the military is politically. Would we remove a sitting president under orders from 'some' of congress? No. Believe it or not, we talk about things just like this. There is downtime, and although the discussion is mostly about girls...we talk about girls a lot....did I mention girls? Think I did. Most are also aware of the oath we took and we war game stuff like this in the barracks. Clearly I cannot comment on all of the military, but people seem to be forgetting a little known fact that has existed in the military for a long long long time and I'm pretty sure every enlisted vet on this board will agree...'Enlisted don't care much for officers, and we care nothing for bad officers.' They are a necessary evil at best. So if you are counting on an order from congressman X to equate to a military coup to remove a president, it won't happen. There is no 50/50 split, it will fracture the officer/enlisted paradigm and once we are ignoring what they tell us, and we will, what will they do about it? What can they do about it? How many senior enlisted cars do you see driving around with Biden stickers on em?

The military of today is not the military of 50 years ago but one part of it remains consistent, distrust of officers. And although congress might control the officer corps, it is the senior enlisted that controls the rank and file, and have you seen any massive outreach from the congress to the enlisted ranks? We have the guns, and there are a hell of a lot more of us. If you want to know what will happen, go to your local VFW and talk to some of the beat up top sergeants there, they will tell you exactly what will happen if they try to get cute like that.

I would never give an order like that to my lads, but I would shoot the person who gave the order to me. Take that for what it's worth. That case would be a purely political issue. You broke it, you bought it.