this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
497 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3737 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.

Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.

He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.

“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.

Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Did you guys watch that "documentary" Civil War?

[–] Gumbyyy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

But the constitution forbids the US military from operating within the borders of the US! Surely that'll stop him from ever being able to do this! Right? Right?????

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 52 minutes ago

It also forbids warrantless search and seizure of property and the president from receiving financial gifts from foreign governments. The courts have been filled with people who don't care.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Possibly? One might be able to make the case for the National Guard, but maybe the average person won't know/care about the difference when interacting with armed people in uniform.

Aside from that, I've noticed other Lemmings bring up the fact that the Armed Forces in general are sworn to uphold the US Constitution. As an organization, they may disregard orders that are in conflict with this. Of course, that comes down to interpretation of any individual in command, so despite loud protest to the contrary I personally wouldn't rely on that.

[–] ZMonster@lemmy.world 2 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago)

As an organization, they may disregard orders that are in conflict with this. Of course, that comes down to interpretation of any individual in command, so despite loud protest to the contrary I personally wouldn't rely on that.

This is going to make me throw up a little, but I think the command leadership in recent years has really turned a heel on political alignment. And - hurk - I feel like they would do the honorable thing. You're not wrong though, obviously the military attracts right wing shit heads who believe what they want. So I would imagine that there would be a breakdown of the command at lower levels in scant instances; but brigade, division, corps, and post commanders usually follow rigorous and strict guidelines. Values are a big deal. But brainworm has been feeding on dumb dumbs and it doesn't appear to be starving any time soon.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, everyone has their own interpretation of the Constitution these days. They'll "uphold" whatever version of the Constitution their own interpretation allows.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 3 points 4 hours ago

I think the information is good, but they really need to actually talk about military leaders. It's basically known that the military should not be operating within the US borders, with the exception of national guard, and that with strict limits. We know, because military leaders have told us, that they have discussed what they would do if Trump gave unconstitutional orders. But we don't know the details, and we don't know who has decided what. Of course it's difficult for people to go public with hypothetical responses to that kind of blatant abuse of Presidential power. But it's still something that needs to be mentioned.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

mass deportations of undocumented people

I feel like this is something that won't really happen. Despite conservative rhetoric and posturing about closed borders, the reality is that major parts of our economy - like agriculture, meat packing, restaurants and construction - are utterly dependent on undocumented immigrant labor. Mass deportations would be insanely difficult to actually achieve, and would cause enormous economic upheaval, what with the fact that fucking food and housing are apparently important to people. Not to say that conservatives would really give a shit about that, but the people hiring all these undocumented workers and exploiting their cheap labor are generally conservative and wouldn't want their cash cows disrupted.

On the other hand, I didn't think they would really do anything much about abortion either, since that's such a major thing to fire their base up about. I should probably never underestimate their willingness to destroy the whole country in order to hurt what passes for the Left here.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago

I should probably never underestimate their willingness to destroy the whole country in order to hurt what passes for the Left here.

I think we should take them at their word. They are insane enough to do a wide variety of terrible things and ruin the country. As far as their rich backers go, everyone thinks they can control the monster they've unleashed until it's too late.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 5 hours ago

I think it's the threat that is the point. Maybe the efforts won't reach the critical "mass deportations" but the purpose is to make migrants scared.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 43 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Correct, so maybe we could stop protesting Harris over Israel until AFTER the fucking election?

Just saying, we should probably stop the genocide coming for us before we try to stop the one not in our backyard? I mean it's going to be harder to get Israel to stop bombing Palestinian children and give humanitarian aide to said children while we're lined up for Trump's gas chambers

signed, a transgender woman who don't want to end up in a mass grave full of other AMAB individuals all of us wearing pink triangles!

[–] Machinist@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago

Fucking right?! Hate is being preached from the pulpit every Sunday supporting this clown and the machine pulling his strings.

In many places in this country our queer brothers and sisters are in mortal danger. These people hate and demonize the different and the other. It's an old playbook, but, it sure does work.

If you don't think the machine would put our people in camps; you're wearing blinders and don't know your history. Lives depend on this election.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Yea sounds great. Just accept genocide of the Palestinians and stop complaining about our paychecks funding war crimes and genocide every month. After all, it’s just genocide, right?

I agree, I don’t mind it happening to people over there as long as it doesn’t happen to me. It’s just genocide.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 1 points 27 minutes ago

"Let's whinge and moan about a problem that will only get worse if Trump is elected, which whinging and moaning about against Harris prior to the election will help achieve!"

truly astonishing foresight

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems -2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

People said the same of Biden but protesting him got us Harris.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 32 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

No not ''at risk''. This is his NUMBER ONE policy promise. He's running on this. Explicitly. Why are we pretending it's not?

[–] tmyakal@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

Because last time his number one policy promise was to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. And his number two promise was an alternative to Obamacare.

He's not so great at following through with his promises. That's the only thing non-MAGAs have going for them: he's pretty incompetent.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 31 points 18 hours ago

So, ghettoes. And not the US ghettoes of the 60s and 70s, but the German ghettoes of the 30s and 40s.

[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 135 points 1 day ago (7 children)

I feel like everyone forgot what happened last time.

People in unmarked vans with no identifying patches or badges, just fatigues, grabbing people off the streets at night in the northwest.

Even worse than the official fascists, the unofficial ones who were emboldened to act with impunity, riding into cities and inciting violence. Attempting to run Kamala's bus off the road in 2020 in Texas.

Dems run like they want to lose. Always conceding the arguments of the fascists. Touting the endorsement of monsters like Dick Cheney. The kinds of monsters who made the Republican party what it is today.

If "senior democrats" actually gave a shit about avoiding conflict in the US, they'd actually be fighting for universal voting rights and eliminating FPTP voting.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 18 points 21 hours ago

You hit it on the head. The unmarked vans, unbadged troops, people "disappearing"--those were their practice drills and how they'll do it. Uniformed troops will also be used in some situations (like the mass deportations), but the ones doing the daily dirty work against any demonstrators, specific political targets, etc. ("the enemy within") will be those incognito forces. 😧

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh, I fuckin remember.

Honestly, if Trump somehow pulls out a win - and definitely, if he pulls out a win with some very clearly bullshit tactics involving GOP congressional leaders and the Tribunal of Six - I am completely serious when I say I expect an order of magnitude increase of political violence, up to and including a potential civil war. It’s that bad.

[–] in4aPenny@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I think it's important to contextualize what a civil war in America nowadays would look like. It will be military vs police, national guard vs army, civilians vs government, etc. etc. Most Americans don't even have a shared history anymore, let alone present.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 12 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I’ve gone back and forth on what to do in the event of a Trump win. I’m honestly not sure what I should do at this point. Like yeah, I live here, and I want to defend the place I grew up in from fascists… but if the government just converts to fascism, I’m not sure there’s a way to save this place in it’s current incarnation. It’ll probably be Balkanized to one degree or another after a LOT of messy conflict. And the corollary there is that we won’t be backstopping global stability, like, at all any more, which will have a shitload of absolutely horrific effects in so, so many regions. And yeah - I get that a lot of countries resent American hegemony. As an American, we’ve done a pretty shit job of “defending democracy” (largely because authoritarian regimes are the more stable option for basing agreements). But at the same time, I can guaran-fucking-tee you that Russian and CCP hegemony will be worse.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

I want to leave too, but let me ask you this...

Where are you going to go that is safe from a doomsday cult with access to enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a few times over?

We can make a bigger difference here, keeping the fascists too busy trying to get and maintain complete control to let those apocalypse dogs off their doom chains.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 19 hours ago

A civil war is the only thing that can pull the US out of a Trump win, because fascists never give up power by choice and no one is coming to save us

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (4 children)

Deploy the National Guard all you want. The Armed Forces of the United States of America swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President. It would be unprecedented for the NG to be deployed in such a manner to "democrat cities", so this is purely hypothetical, but the Armed Forces as a general rule, do not fire on civilians or otherwise restrict the rights of civilians without just provocation or reason. Yes, Kent State is a famous example of when the National Guard opened fire and killed unarmed civilians exercising their 1st Amendment rights, and the aftermath of Kent State is why the National Guard will think long and hard about ever doing that again. It would make the George Floyd riots look like a picnic.

[–] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 44 points 23 hours ago (22 children)

Man, you have way more confidence in the military not being full of MAGA idiots than I do.

As someone constantly surrounded by people in the military - they're almost all MAGA idiots, and the ones who aren't are fence sitting "libertarians" who go right wing every time.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Curious are you surrounded by Marines? Because all the other branches poll about 30 approve /70 disapprove on Trump specifically. And the military has told him he can't order this stuff before.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 3 points 15 hours ago

It wouldn't even be the first time people were deported over political ideology.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›