Civil War-again?

[Bootstrap]

Many people think he's a habitual liar. Do you think he was telling the truth on this issue for once?

No liar always lies. Even habitual liars tell the truth when it serves their interests.

It would be interesting for one to claim a politician only tells the truth when it is convenient for one to do so. I guess that’s a new rhetorical device though.

I think it's best to claim a politician tells the truth only when they are saying something that is true.

[JohnH]

I think it's best to claim a politician tells the truth only when they are saying something that is true.

OK. So is there any actual evidence that active-duty military (not National Guard) has been deployed in the U.S., and if so, what exactly was the mission?

[Soloist]

I think it's best to claim a politician tells the truth only when they are saying something that is true.

OK. So is there any actual evidence that active-duty military (not National Guard) has been deployed in the U.S., and if so, what exactly was the mission?

Yes. Although I haven’t bothered to see if it’s happening during Pres Trump’s administration.

[Bootstrap]

I think it's best to claim a politician tells the truth only when they are saying something that is true.

OK. So is there any actual evidence that active-duty military (not National Guard) has been deployed in the U.S., and if so, what exactly was the mission?

So let's assume Trump was lying when he said that?

Doesn’t the claim itself matter? He is asserting, as a former President, that he deployed active-duty military against American citizens. And he’s framing this in terms of “bringing the military back home to fight the enemy within.” That rhetoric is frightening whether the deployment actually happened.

But why should we assume he was lying? If he actually deployed them in that way, that's worse.

[JohnH]

I think it's best to claim a politician tells the truth only when they are saying something that is true.

OK. So is there any actual evidence that active-duty military (not National Guard) has been deployed in the U.S., and if so, what exactly was the mission?

So let's assume Trump was lying when he said that?

Doesn’t the claim itself matter? He is asserting, as a former President, that he deployed active-duty military against American citizens. And he’s framing this in terms of “bringing the military back home to fight the enemy within.” That rhetoric is frightening whether the deployment actually happened.

But why should we assume he was lying? If he actually deployed them in that way, that's worse.

Again, is there any evidence this has actually happened? I mean, Trump has said he’s ended 6 wars or something. Do you just take that at face value too?

[Soloist]

OK. So is there any actual evidence that active-duty military (not National Guard) has been deployed in the U.S., and if so, what exactly was the mission?

So let's assume Trump was lying when he said that?

Doesn’t the claim itself matter? He is asserting, as a former President, that he deployed active-duty military against American citizens. And he’s framing this in terms of “bringing the military back home to fight the enemy within.” That rhetoric is frightening whether the deployment actually happened.

But why should we assume he was lying? If he actually deployed them in that way, that's worse.

Again, is there any evidence this has actually happened? I mean, Trump has said he’s ended 6 wars or something. Do you just take that at face value too?

Alright fine... you win. I looked into it. President Trump deployed at least 700 active duty Marines to LA. Past that I'm not going to look so that is the answer. He did.

[Bootstrap]

OK. So is there any actual evidence that active-duty military (not National Guard) has been deployed in the U.S., and if so, what exactly was the mission?

So let's assume Trump was lying when he said that?

Doesn’t the claim itself matter? He is asserting, as a former President, that he deployed active-duty military against American citizens. And he’s framing this in terms of “bringing the military back home to fight the enemy within.” That rhetoric is frightening whether the deployment actually happened.

But why should we assume he was lying? If he actually deployed them in that way, that's worse.

Again, is there any evidence this has actually happened? I mean, Trump has said he’s ended 6 wars or something. Do you just take that at face value too?

What is “this”? I laid out two possibilities:

1. Trump was lying.
2. Trump was telling the truth.

Is there a third option you want to propose?

More importantly, could you bring some evidence for your own view rather than simply challenging whatever I say? Without new information, we’re just running in circles. If you have evidence that supports your position, I’m genuinely interested in seeing it.

[JohnH]

\
Alright fine... you win. I looked into it. President Trump deployed at least 700 active duty Marines to LA. Past that I'm not going to look so that is the answer. He did.

"Deployed" on what mission?

As I understand it, some Marines were simply assigned to be present on federal property in LA, which is... not the same as being "deployed". They were just assigned to go exist there.

By the same standard, the Marines are "deployed" to San Diego since they're also on guard duty on federal property at Camp Pendleton.

[Soloist]

\
Alright fine... you win. I looked into it. President Trump deployed at least 700 active duty Marines to LA. Past that I'm not going to look so that is the answer. He did.

"Deployed" on what mission?

As I understand it, some Marines were simply assigned to be present on federal property in LA, which is... not the same as being "deployed". They were just assigned to go exist there.

By the same standard, the Marines are "deployed" to San Diego since they're also on guard duty on federal property at Camp Pendleton.

You are quibbling with semantics.

Do you know what a TAD is? What constitutes a deployment?
We are deployed or we are stationed. They were not stationed there.
When the comfort at least I think it was the comfort… was sent after the tsunami it was a short term mission, but it was called a deployment.
Technically, I’ve been on two deployments, although no one really calls them deployments because for most military deployment is something that last at a minimum of eight months.
But you’re arguing about semantics because when an average American says deployed, they don’t mean for a separate parameter specific mission that the military talks about calling deployments… that would be a deployment to 99% of non-military people.
I was literally sent to Cuba. People could be stationed in Cuba or they could be deployed to Cuba. The difference was the length of tour.
if you were unlucky, you got a three year station order in Cuba.
If you were lucky you ended up with a two week assignment.
The average was a year long deployment.

[JohnH]

You are quibbling with semantics.

Do you know what a TAD is? What constitutes a deployment?
We are deployed or we are stationed. They were not stationed there.
When the comfort at least I think it was the comfort… was sent after the tsunami it was a short term mission, but it was called a deployment.
Technically, I’ve been on two deployments, although no one really calls them deployments because for most military deployment is something that last at a minimum of eight months.
But you’re arguing about semantics because when an average American says deployed, they don’t mean for a separate parameter specific mission that the military talks about calling deployments… that would be a deployment to 99% of non-military people.
I was literally sent to Cuba. People could be stationed in Cuba or they could be deployed to Cuba. The difference was the length of tour.
if you were unlucky, you got a three year station order in Cuba.
If you were lucky you ended up with a two week assignment.
The average was a year long deployment.

Well, when the argument is "this is against some law because they were deployed", then semantics do matter.

As it stands I'm a little dismayed how the History and Current Events threads are being redeployed into being Politics subforums, and ones that cater to a particular partisan bias.