South Dakota Gov announces she is sending National Guard Troops to Texas to help secure border....paid for by a private donation

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,371
4,365
1,743
She walked by a border crossing and got a photo and talked to somebody. My bad it was a photo op that was forced on her because Trump said he was going, and she had been called out on TV by an interviewer after she tried to say she had already been. That's the important aspect of all of this. None of this was to accomplish anything other than to beat Trump there and get a picture and act like she was caring. All to cover up for her inability to have done this any other time, and for her to lie about it when confronted.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
So there is nothing she could have done at the border that you would have deemed "of substance".

Got it.

Thanks for mentioning Trump....is him going there when he no longer has any policy making authority as an ex-President anything other than political theater and photo-ops?

I bet you find some inane argument that his is something other than that.

You and Republicans calling her out and criticizing her for "not going to the border" sooner in the first place is itself nothing other than political theater anyway.

VP Harris hasn't been to the border.....

Now she has, but she didn't go at the time I wanted her to and she stepped on my beloved leader Trump's photo op at the border.

The whole thing from top to toes is political theater. It's nonsense.

If she was being criticized for border policies implementing policies that you and Republicans disagreed with or not implementing that you and Republicans thought should be, that would be one thing. But that requires something other than HDS.
I don't care about trump going. Honestly, the only reason I mentioned it was because it caused her to finally go to get a photo op.
She was put in charge of the "border crisis" (in quotes because they said no crisis existed), and was ignoring it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,371
4,365
1,743
But he did not give her the money according to what's been reported, and tell her to deploy the troops. She was already going to deploy the troops and then he stepped up and offered to pay the money for their deployment.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
And that's a critical distinction to you because......?
Because your original problem with this whole mess, was that you thought he went to her and asked her to send troops.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
18,921
10,966
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
Because your original problem with this whole mess, was that you thought he went to her and asked her to send troops.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Has anyone seen where that wasn't the case? The narrative you choose to believe is they were sending the troops regardless and he's just picking up the tab after hearing about it. That's a really naive view on what probably happened. I don't think you are that way, but I feel you have a viewpoint that you need to defend and haven't had a chance to take a step back and really evaluate the situation. There were backchannel conversations setting this up and it's impossible to know which side initiated the conversation.

No matter how this went down, we have a private citizen who is uber rich using American troops as his own mercenary force. That should be a full stop moment. It doesn't matter the reasoning behind it. It could have been Soros spending money to defend BLM protesters, someone on Wall Street getting a cyber security team to chase down Russian hackers, or whatever. We can't have elites buying our military for a pet project. You can claim they were going to be there anyways and the NG sends people on missions like this all the time. Both of those things could be completely true and this is still wrong.

This shouldn't have happened. This sets a precident that is problematic and there needs to be legislation that eliminates the practice.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,765
20,596
1,743
Because your original problem with this whole mess, was that you thought he went to her and asked her to send troops.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
So it’s a critical distinction to you because you imagined that it was a critical distinction to me.

Got it.

Btw....No...it wasn’t “my original problem with this whole mess.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,371
4,365
1,743
Because your original problem with this whole mess, was that you thought he went to her and asked her to send troops.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Has anyone seen where that wasn't the case? The narrative you choose to believe is they were sending the troops regardless and he's just picking up the tab after hearing about it. That's a really naive view on what probably happened. I don't think you are that way, but I feel you have a viewpoint that you need to defend and haven't had a chance to take a step back and really evaluate the situation. There were backchannel conversations setting this up and it's impossible to know which side initiated the conversation.

No matter how this went down, we have a private citizen who is uber rich using American troops as his own mercenary force. That should be a full stop moment. It doesn't matter the reasoning behind it. It could have been Soros spending money to defend BLM protesters, someone on Wall Street getting a cyber security team to chase down Russian hackers, or whatever. We can't have elites buying our military for a pet project. You can claim they were going to be there anyways and the NG sends people on missions like this all the time. Both of those things could be completely true and this is still wrong.

This shouldn't have happened. This sets a precident that is problematic and there needs to be legislation that eliminates the practice.
I agree, fix the ability for this to happen, but multiple sources all report the order it happened and no one has found any thing different.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,371
4,365
1,743
Because your original problem with this whole mess, was that you thought he went to her and asked her to send troops.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
So it’s a critical distinction to you because you imagined that it was a critical distinction to me.

Got it.

Btw....No...it wasn’t “my original problem with this whole mess.
If that was not important to you from the beginning, then I apologize.

How to stop this though?
Keeping people from influencing politicians is a hard thing to do.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
18,921
10,966
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
I agree, fix the ability for this to happen, but multiple sources all report the order it happened and no one has found any thing different.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You say you agree but you don't. There is a saying-everything after the but is bull****. You are defending this. You don't agree at all.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,807
41,422
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
You know we’re not in a court of law don’t you pigeon? I’ve got no responsibility to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn’t make my suspicions “patently false” by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the rest of it, I’ll just quote your beloved leader hero and yell “Fake News! Fake News!

The news reports merely quote the politician and the billionaire supporter that even CocoC admits “could be lying”.

If you want to go with well they it, and I like what they’re doing anyway, so I believe it”....cool. No skin off my nose.
What about the alternative facts? You forgot the alternative facts!
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,807
41,422
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
I don't care about trump going. Honestly, the only reason I mentioned it was because it caused her to finally go to get a photo op.
She was put in charge of the "border crisis" (in quotes because they said no crisis existed), and was ignoring it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
During the months of April and May I finished work for the university while here in Oklahoma City. I never went back to Ohio. Was I ignoring the university because I never went back to Ohio?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,765
20,596
1,743
I don't care about trump going. Honestly, the only reason I mentioned it was because it caused her to finally go to get a photo op.
She was put in charge of the "border crisis" (in quotes because they said no crisis existed), and was ignoring it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
So we have pages of you ranting about how she was nowhere close to the border and how she didn’t do anything when she was there and how she stepped on Trump’s photo op because you disagree with how she hasn’t solved the “border crisis” immigration issues that have been going on for literally decades..... in six months.

Harris Derangement Syndrome....a classic variant of Biden Derangement Syndrome.

Roger that.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,274
32,416
1,743
oklahoma city
We live in a democratic republic. Elected officials are empowered to make decisions for their constituents. The governor of South Dakota is empowered to deploy their national guard, and the South Dakota legislature is empowered to create laws determining how that can be funded.

South Dakota's politicians are exercising the power that they've been granted. If their citizens disagree with the decisions being made, they can correct the situation during the next election. It doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree with what happened, the democratic process is working.
I’ll repost this the next time you are whining about something like taxes and how the wealthy pay most of them.

Basically, the theme of this post is up until our democratic processes cease to function, there is no reason for a political message board to voice your concerns. Just shut up with your concerns, they don’t matter. Elections will fix them if you are right.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
25,859
22,575
1,743
I wonder if I could get some cannons for tomorrow’s party?

Rockets red glare mofos I like to party
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2007
4,868
3,952
1,743
I’ll repost this the next time you are whining about something like taxes and how the wealthy pay most of them.

Basically, the theme of this post is up until our democratic processes cease to function, there is no reason for a political message board to voice your concerns. Just shut up with your concerns, they don’t matter. Elections will fix them if you are right.
Sorry for the confusion. I should've been clearer. My post wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the people arguing that our democratic process had been circumvented simply because they dislike the results it produced. There are a lot of results I dislike, but I never argue that they're undemocratic.

This forum is a marketplace of ideas where we can all come together and share our opinions. I wasn't trying to discourage anyone from doing that.

On a side note, I worry that the ignorance of the crowd will eventually be our downfall. Democracy dies in darkness. That's a whole different conversation though.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,807
41,422
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
I’ll repost this the next time you are whining about something like taxes and how the wealthy pay most of them.

Basically, the theme of this post is up until our democratic processes cease to function, there is no reason for a political message board to voice your concerns. Just shut up with your concerns, they don’t matter. Elections will fix them if you are right.
Sorry for the confusion. I should've been clearer. My post wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the people arguing that our democratic process had been circumvented simply because they dislike the results it produced. There are a lot of results I dislike, but I never argue that they're undemocratic.

This forum is a marketplace of ideas where we can all come together and share our opinions. I wasn't trying to discourage anyone from doing that.

On a side note, I worry that the ignorance of the crowd will eventually be our downfall. Democracy dies in darkness. That's a whole different conversation though.
I support states sending help to the Texas border. If the feds won't defend the border then states have to.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,862
2,562
1,743
47
DFW
I support states sending help to the Texas border. If the feds won't defend the border then states have to.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Ditto. It’s not about “disliking the results.” It’s about setting a dangerous precedent. The Republican governor of Arkansas agrees.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,868
3,952
1,743
I support states sending help to the Texas border. If the feds won't defend the border then states have to.
In a perfect world, the federal government would secure our border and reform our immigration policies. States like South Dakota should never have to worry about how to pay for sending troops to the border. The blame for this entire kerfuffle lies in Washington.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,807
41,422
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
I support states sending help to the Texas border. If the feds won't defend the border then states have to.
In a perfect world, the federal government would secure our border and reform our immigration policies. States like South Dakota should never have to worry about how to pay for sending troops to the border. The blame for this entire kerfuffle lies in Washington.
It would have been better had she sent state troopers instead of national guard.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk