this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
637 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2522 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
637
If Trump wins the election, US cities are at risk of military takeovers and mass deportations (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
202 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lmao, throwing the kitchen sink at us and hoping we won't check the details?

  1. Retired Supreme Court Judge

  2. Opinion article saying Democrats should, by a staff writer

  3. A House Bill from 20 years ago with no co-sponsors, that didn't even make it out of committee.

  4. A Podcaster's opinion article

  5. Opinion article saying Democrats should, by a staff writer

  6. College Professor wrote a book

  7. The law saying you can't have fully automatic weapons, (LMFAO, really? you think that's a repeal of the second?)

  8. An article about the the representative from number 3, who again, acted alone, admitted he acted without party support, and admitted it was little more than a political stunt. Thank you for giving us the first real evidence that Democrats are not trying to ban guns or repeal the second.

  9. Some state legislators asking for a clarifying amendment. Which, (checks notes), yup completely ignored by the party.

  10. A paywalled opinion piece by a staff writer.

  11. Your Seattle Times article puts those numbers in the correct light, because 39 percent isn't a majority or anywhere near enough to force action on the national level.

But public-opinion polling shows it would take a lot of persuading to bring the public around to that view. In February, for instance, the Economist and YouGov asked Americans whether they supported a repeal of the Second Amendment. Just 21 percent said they favored such a proposal, compared to 60 percent in opposition.

So no. The answer is no. Because despite using eleven sources you could not find any evidence the democrats are actually trying to ban all guns. Even if we repealed the second amendment it wouldn't ban all guns, it would just open the opportunity to regulate them.

I will however say that every time the GOP offers thoughts and prayers over the bodies of children, that number grows and once it reaches a tipping point a ban will be inevitable and there will be no glorious civil war because support will just be that high. If the GOP backed off for even a second and allowed red flag laws and universal background check, and had their state AGs prosecute those laws then there would be less shit for law abiding gun owners to wade through. Which is why 75 percent of Americans support Universal Background Check and Gun Licensing. The country is still willing to work with you, that may not be true in a another decade with a hundred more high profile mass casualty events at schools.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Lmao, throwing the kitchen sink at us and hoping we won't check the details?

? You asked for sources, I provided them and you complain...way to start out.

  1. Retired Supreme Court Judge

A democrat appointed judge. Guess he doesn't count some how.

  1. Opinion article saying Democrats should, by a staff writer

Ah yea another Democrat that doesn't count...got it.

  1. A House Bill from 20 years ago with no co-sponsors, that didn't even make it out of committee.

So...a bill from a Democrat...but doesn't count...this is going to be a trend with you isn't it?

  1. A Podcaster's opinion article

Another Democrat that doesn't count...

  1. Opinion article saying Democrats should, by a staff writer

Yep definitely a trend...

  1. College Professor wrote a book

A democrat got it... doesn't count

  1. The law saying you can't have fully automatic weapons, (LMFAO, really? you think that's a repeal of the second?)

I forgot how death by 1000 cuts doesn't count...you sound like a anti-abortion mouth piece saying abortion can still be had in other states, but it's fine to be banned in red ones.

  1. An article about the the representative from number 3, who again, acted alone, admitted he acted without party support, and admitted it was little more than a political stunt. Thank you for giving us the first real evidence that Democrats are not trying to ban guns or repeal the second.

Sooo yep... doesn't count because they're not true Democrats? I hear this a lot from Republicans when they try and refute points...

  1. Some state legislators asking for a clarifying amendment. Which, (checks notes), yup completely ignored by the party.

So....(Checks notes) Not a real Democrat...got it.

  1. A paywalled opinion piece by a staff writer.

Another not real democrat...man you really think very few people are Democrats.

  1. Your Seattle Times article puts those numbers in the correct light, because 39 percent isn't a majority or anywhere near enough to force action on the national level.

So 39% aren't real Democrats is what you're saying?

So no. The answer is no. Because despite using eleven sources you could not find any evidence the democrats are actually trying to ban all guns. Even if we repealed the second amendment it wouldn't ban all guns, it would just open the opportunity to regulate them.

Got it no real Democrats..

I will however say that every time the GOP offers thoughts and prayers over the bodies of children, that number grows and once it reaches a tipping point a ban will be inevitable and there will be no glorious civil war because support will just be that high.

Why are we talking about the shit stains in the GOP?

If the GOP backed off for even a second and allowed red flag laws and universal background check, and had their state AGs prosecute those laws then there would be less shit for law abiding gun owners to wade through.

You do realize a good chunk of the GOP supports ERPOs right? But again why are we talking about the GOP? That wasn't your question.

Which is why 75 percent of Americans support Universal Background Check and Gun Licensing. The country is still willing to work with you, that may not be true in a another decade with a hundred more high profile mass casualty events at schools.

We've had 15 mass shootings in schools since Columbine... we're going to need to have way more each year to get to 100 in under a decade. UBC requires a registery, but most people are to stupid to know this...and gun licensing is a joke.

None of that is going to stop or even dent gun deaths in this country.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If I have to acknowledge everyone who self identifies as a democrat then you have to acknowledge the Republicans and pro 2A groups are terrorists who should be hunted down and renditioned. After all, we're counting what every single person who self identifies with the group says right? Not their actual platform or actions?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I have to acknowledge everyone who self identifies as a democrat then you have to acknowledge the Republicans and pro 2A groups are terrorists who should be hunted down and renditioned.

Lol wait wait you're suggesting that people who own guns and are pro2a are terrorists? Lol the fuck is wrong with you.

After all, we're counting what every single person who self identifies with the group says right? Not their actual platform or actions?

Lol you literally cannot fathom that there is a good chunk of the Democratic party that would ban all guns if they had the chance lol

PS suggesting that the repubs are pro2a is hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh no not at all, just that there are some. If I have to own a minority position, so do you.

Or we could converse in good faith and look at what the policy directions actually are.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh no not at all, just that there are some. If I have to own a minority position, so do you.

This is the issue, I'm not here defending the repubs, and you should know that. They're shit for gun rights, they use it as a wedge issue to get single issue voters to vote for them. Hence why my statement that the dems should drop gun control.

Or we could converse in good faith and look at what the policy directions actually are.

I've provided you sources, would you like me to show actual laws on the books from dems in deep blue cities/states that are doing the death by 1000 cuts way? They might not be able to repeal the 2nd but they're damn sure trying to make it impossible to own a firearm.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Dude if you had a smoking gun we'd have seen it by now. All you have is inference and FUD.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You sound like every republican out there. "Nuh uh, that doesn't count"... that's what you're doing right now. Completely downplaying that more than a 3rd of democrats want the 2nd repealed....but sure you keep thinking otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

And it's still not party policy because a super majority don't want it. Weird how that works in a democracy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago

Cool, that still wasn't what we're were discussing...