Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

So when the military was deployed to LA due to ICE riots, then they left without incident is a warning sign too? Or maybe that was just just a test?

View on HN

> So when the military was deployed to LA due to ICE riots

ICE was the entity acting lawlessly, and tht were sent to support it.

>then they left without incident

They did not “leave withot incident”. Except in the sense that no additional incident was caused by their departure.

But, yes, the LA deployment was both a test and a warning sign (and, like the DC one, also a deliberate distraction from other things the Administration wanted to take a less prominent place in the national discussion at the time.)

The lack of extended military deployment and restoration of local control can be seen two ways:

1. "both a test and a warning sign"

2. Evidence Trump has no intention of turning the country into a military dictatorship.

You choose the more exptreme interpretation (#1) instead of the obvious one (#2)?

No, I choose the obvious one (#2), but that it is obvious requires considering it in the context of the other actions by the Administration regarding the military and law enforcement and related areas happening prior to, concurrent with, and since the deployment to LA (including, particularly but far from exclusively, the ones for which the deployment to LA was done explicitly to support), rather than considering one isolated fact about the LA deployment in a vacuum.

You don’t have to view it in a vacuum, you can simply view the event as increasing or decreasing the risk of the military takeover.

When the military was deployed then peacefully left, you still viewed that as an increase in the risk of a military takeover?

Even though the troops were withdrawn?

I’m just trying to understanding this upside down world where when something doesn’t happen it’s proof it’s more likely to happen in the future.

You must have also believed Russia was just training when it massed its forces on the Ukrainian border before the 2 days special military operation. Them being there increased the risk of take over even before the invasion started. The military take over won't happen until it happens, obviously. But now the Trump admin knows how minimal and pathetic the backlash is against their fascist actions.

Your analogy makes no sense.

The Marine entered AND LEFT Los Angelas. Russia never did that.

If you had said “while the Marines were deployed the risk is higher” it’s at least logical.

But the fact they left without incident yet you think it’s proof of the opposite outcome is hard to understand.

And yet here we are today with more troops deployed in more states. But sure keep burying your head in the sand.

Definitely a warning sign, even if the warning light went out again. It may even have had a slightly positive effect in waking up the Democrat governor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com