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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

With the current info on Undecideds, it's lining up mostly with what I guessed based on what we knew about the locked in voters barring another polling disaster rendering all the data moot. Around 60% of the recent undecideds have broke for Harris, but the bulk of Undecideds who committed earlier broke for Trump (52-48) which is a larger number. These two average out to basically 50-50 on the whole. Undecideds went massively for Trump both previous elections so I don't foresee Harris breaking 50%ish, that's already a big gain.

This is relevant because the final locked in scores at the rate things are trending are going to be something like 47.5 - 49 give or take a half a point by election day. Not all of the 3-4 points left are going to either them, at least one, maybe 2 are going for Third Parties, which unlike in past years are way more left leaning than normal thanks mostly to RFK Jr and Libertarian infighting. Harris is trending in the right direction, but that 3rd party shift absorbs some of that. A final 50/50 call between what's left leaves maybe a 2 point difference final result depending on exactly how well third parties do. 48-50 or so. That's a Hilary Clinton sized margin between Popular Vote and EC. Not a death sentence, this thing is cyclical, sometimes it favors one party or another (Democrats had a EC advantage in 2004 and 2008 and probably 2012) and sometimes it's stronger. The effect is supposed to be much less this year, a Biden level margin of 4 points or even a 3 point lead is a safe Kamala win. Not so much 2 points, that's up in the margins.

If the polling is right, this is a dead heat election where Wisconsin and Michigan are going blue, Arizona Georgia and North Carolina going red, and Nevada and Pennsylvania are too close to call.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 23 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (6 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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

Oh that's actually the easiest part. We are very very good at logistics in the US. The hard part about deportation in the past has been the red tape, like court hearings and moving people around to different agencies depending on their exact case details.

They don't want to deal with any of that. They want the Proud Boys to grab your non English speakers and put them into a short term camp. There will be no checking of papers for naturalization or anything like that. If you're not white and you can't speak English well they'll take you, and they will ignore any lawyer, court, or law enforcement orders to stop. From the camp you'll be put on a chartered flight to wherever they think you're from with a "Do Not Return" note on your travel documents.

The truly scary part is what happens when they find out other countries won't just accept American citizens. But they're imagining Operation Wetback, not anything from the Bush or Reagan era.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 20 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 6 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 57 points 1 day ago (17 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 23 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day 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 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Doesn't need to be competent in order to say "hey, go kill some people who make you feel uncomfortable, we give you tacit approval and you'll be the new Kyle Rittenhouse"

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 156 points 1 day ago (16 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.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›