this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024

637 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2637 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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]

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.

(page 3) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did you guys watch that "documentary" Civil War?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (6 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?????

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

To be fair the constitution is deeply flawed and needed to evolve a lot more than it has to keep up with the progression of society. It needs to evolve or die, and with our current batch of compromised and etheically empty politicians I wouldnt trust them to alter it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month 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)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month 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)

load more comments