637

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
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You do not execute orders that aren't moral. The US Military is not like the Russians. Although, I wouldn't depend completely on that.

[-] ovalofsand@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I don't believe anyone is perfectly immune from propaganda but I don't even know if you need propaganda to get people to follow orders. All you need is someone to give the order. There isn't any Morality In following orders. That's why they're called soldiers

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Gumbyyy@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

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 20 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 10 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

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 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 6 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

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 13 points 1 week ago

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 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sine_Fine_Belli@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

This is why liberal gun owners exist

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Did you guys watch that "documentary" Civil War?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week 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.

[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Oh goodie, this that whole reason we have the 2nd amendment thing? Should work out great.

[-] MoonRaven@feddit.nl 8 points 1 week ago

I guess he's seen the episode of deep space nine and thought it would be a good idea...

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week 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.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Hi former soldier here, I can offer some educated insight on this. What's likely to happen in the very short term of such an order is the Joint Chiefs refuse it. Trump replaces them and the next set refuses it. This will happen a few more times before he gets someone willing to tell him yes, but they know the military under them isn't going to respond. If Trump insists on this path he will likely try to directly order smaller units to do what he wants. Any unit that does will find it's leaders immediately relieved of command by their superiors. If some small unit does find it's way out into the public it's likely a general will order the military police to go round them up on charges of deserting their post.

It will be very messy and Authoritarians hate messy. Much more likely is they give the Proud Boys and the KKK uniforms and guns and call them soldiers, along with any federal agents he can recruit again. The actual military is going to be very resistant to shooting at Americans. We've spent the last 20 years sweating, bleeding, and even dying to protect Americans. Orders to go after Americans en masse, (instead of single Americans overseas on very good evidence they're working with enemy militants), will require a complete change in ideology and essentially invalidates 20 years of effort on the part of the current force. I've seen guys refuse to moderate uniform standards for a command mandated fun event over this exact issue. ("My friends died wearing this uniform, I'll be damned if I disrespect it like that") I highly doubt Trump will change that in any kind of short order.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Sounds like he's promoting firing up civil war tbh. How much of that could he get away with before people aggressively fight back? Or at least I hope we'd aggressively fight back

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
637 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3835 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