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

politics

19062 readers
3782 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
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 16 minutes ago

If Trump loses the elections, US cities at risk of stochastic violence and domestic terrorism. It's not like Harris winning would suddenly make half the country go, "my bad, you're right."

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 1 points 8 minutes ago

The rest of the world at this point:

Yeah fine, fucking whatever.

[–] Sine_Fine_Belli@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

This is why liberal gun owners exist

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 0 points 15 minutes ago

Hey guys, this person is gonna fight the military with his gun!

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

US military personnel pledge an oath to protect the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies and that includes the Commander-in-Chief.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 14 minutes ago

Too bad enemies isn't explicitly defined huh.

[–] tikimusic@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

You mean, like when he won last time?

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

A military takeover of the cities would last about 20minutes, if that, it's against the HOA rules.

What happens when the wealthy home owners see their property values drop, because the army is on every corner, they'll start calling their political reps.

This is a childish fantasy, the highest real estate values are in cities, the wealthiest people have homes in cities. It is a fantasy of the Republic base, that tends not to live in large urban centers.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You know he means the downtown core, not the suburban white people who likely voted for him. But I gave you an upvote for the hilarity of an HOA council member telling the Proud Boys they aren't allowed to setup there.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 8 hours ago

HOA President "Look, your presence is against the HOA By-laws. We're going to have to fine you."

[–] GlobalCompatriot@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago

And with the changes the DOD just made to 5240.01 on September 27 allowing US military action on US soil including up to lethal force, Trump will be allowed to.

Drop me possibly be the first one to use it, but the groundwork is being laid under Democrats.

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Did you guys watch that "documentary" Civil War?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago

So much suffering. That was so avoidable. I like that the point of movie isn't which ideology wins. It's that America isn't immune, any civil war will be a very dirty affair that causes massive amounts of suffering so nobody should be rooting for that path.

[–] Gumbyyy@lemmy.world 14 points 19 hours ago (8 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?????

[–] GlobalCompatriot@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago

Not according to change is made by the DOD last month to 5240.01. It allows US military action on US soil, including lethal force.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The constitution is a piece of paper which has no power if the people with guns say otherwise.

[–] RandomCucumber@lemm.ee 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

So... Time for everyone else to get a gun?

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 1 points 6 hours ago

Women and LGBT people have been the top buyers of guns for a while.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 3 points 13 hours ago

Maybe. I've thought about it.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] GlobalCompatriot@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago

Congress didn't care either. There were multiple constitutional violations that Trump committed while he was in office, but Pelosi never went for those. She went for small bullshit stuff that would result in what we got.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

The paper won't stop him but the officer corps isn't going to obey those orders without him converting it first. A process that historically takes years to complete and leaves a military a shadow of it's former self.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›