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

politics

19050 readers
3795 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
422
If Trump wins the election, US cities are at risk of military takeovers and mass deportations (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 21 hours ago by Theprogressivist@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
57 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 26 minutes ago* (last edited 25 minutes ago)

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.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 22 points 7 hours ago

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!

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago

No not ''at risk''. This is his NUMBER ONE policy promise. He's running on this. Explicitly. Why are we pretending it's not?

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 21 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

US will get a taste of its own medicine nothing else.

[–] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

Deploy the National Guard all you want. The Armed Forces of the United States of America swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President. It would be unprecedented for the NG to be deployed in such a manner to "democrat cities", so this is purely hypothetical, but the Armed Forces as a general rule, do not fire on civilians or otherwise restrict the rights of civilians without just provocation or reason. Yes, Kent State is a famous example of when the National Guard opened fire and killed unarmed civilians exercising their 1st Amendment rights, and the aftermath of Kent State is why the National Guard will think long and hard about ever doing that again. It would make the George Floyd riots look like a picnic.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yes that's your fantasy

"Boy howdy, I sure am glad I'm in Trump's glorious regime, we're gonna take Murrica back from those [British Cigarettes] and [Plauralized Spanish word that means the opposite of the Spanish word Blanca.] who done let all them dog-eating Mexicans in here!" is probably what the National Guard would say in reality

[–] Entropywins@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

I highly doubt that and have much more faith in the principles and professionalism in our state and national gaurd even though I talked soooo much shit about them when I was in the Air Force.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago

It wouldn't even be the first time people were deported over political ideology.

[–] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 41 points 15 hours ago (13 children)

Man, you have way more confidence in the military not being full of MAGA idiots than I do.

As someone constantly surrounded by people in the military - they're almost all MAGA idiots, and the ones who aren't are fence sitting "libertarians" who go right wing every time.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Curious are you surrounded by Marines? Because all the other branches poll about 30 approve /70 disapprove on Trump specifically. And the military has told him he can't order this stuff before.

[–] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Army and Navy mostly

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

That's weird then because Army and Navy really aren't the pro-trump branches. Marines are on top for some reason, probably because they're already kind of a cult. Then Air Force who pushes Christian Evangelism in the ranks. Then Army and lastly the Navy. The Army specifically hates trump for his actions as president. When he stole school funding from their kids and denied people were getting injured by Iranian rockets. To be clear this doesn't mean the branches don't still lean conservative. But if trump ordered them to go against all of their trained ethics they'd tell him to pound sand.

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

Only one person matters and his name is Scott Q. Brown, Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

A person who can and will be replaced.

That's actually how it will go for pretty much everyone down the chain of command. Obey Trump or be replaced by those who will, except the traitorous fucks are already drawing up lists of people they know will obey, and by extension, those they know will not.

Look into Schedule F of project 2025. It's a plan to replace the entire government with loyalists. And that includes the commanders of the military.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

That will take years though. And even once it's done the majority of the military will be ill trained and ill equipped.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 1 points 11 hours ago

What about military leadership, though?

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 118 points 20 hours ago (4 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.

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 10 points 13 hours ago

You hit it on the head. The unmarked vans, unbadged troops, people "disappearing"--those were their practice drills and how they'll do it. Uniformed troops will also be used in some situations (like the mass deportations), but the ones doing the daily dirty work against any demonstrators, specific political targets, etc. ("the enemy within") will be those incognito forces. 😧

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 20 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Oh, I fuckin remember.

Honestly, if Trump somehow pulls out a win - and definitely, if he pulls out a win with some very clearly bullshit tactics involving GOP congressional leaders and the Tribunal of Six - I am completely serious when I say I expect an order of magnitude increase of political violence, up to and including a potential civil war. It’s that bad.

[–] in4aPenny@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I think it's important to contextualize what a civil war in America nowadays would look like. It will be military vs police, national guard vs army, civilians vs government, etc. etc. Most Americans don't even have a shared history anymore, let alone present.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

I’ve gone back and forth on what to do in the event of a Trump win. I’m honestly not sure what I should do at this point. Like yeah, I live here, and I want to defend the place I grew up in from fascists… but if the government just converts to fascism, I’m not sure there’s a way to save this place in it’s current incarnation. It’ll probably be Balkanized to one degree or another after a LOT of messy conflict. And the corollary there is that we won’t be backstopping global stability, like, at all any more, which will have a shitload of absolutely horrific effects in so, so many regions. And yeah - I get that a lot of countries resent American hegemony. As an American, we’ve done a pretty shit job of “defending democracy” (largely because authoritarian regimes are the more stable option for basing agreements). But at the same time, I can guaran-fucking-tee you that Russian and CCP hegemony will be worse.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 11 hours ago

A civil war is the only thing that can pull the US out of a Trump win, because fascists never give up power by choice and no one is coming to save us

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 29 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Mega donors don't want anti fascist rhetoric because it cuts into the profit margins

[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 22 points 17 hours ago

It's almost as if fascism and unbridled capitalism have some kind of a mutually beneficial relationship.

Weird.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Allowing direct sales from car manufacturers and cracking down on unregulated supplements would knee cap fascism immediately

[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

This feels like it attacks the problem at the margins. How is this approach more effective than direct dilution of power and flattening of hierarchies?

[–] unwellsnail@sopuli.xyz 9 points 17 hours ago

This approach would be a step along the way to that goal. A good chunk of fascist support comes from people selling supplements or used cars (there was a recent It Could Happen Here ep discussing this). Those people have money, power, and outsized influence on politics from local to federal. Disrupting their profits disrupts and dilutes their power. If your goal is to disrupt fascism there must be concrete steps to doing that, and this would be one.

[–] MoonRaven@feddit.nl 8 points 16 hours ago

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

[–] oce@jlai.lu 24 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Do we have any idea of what military heads are thinking about that? Are they enthusiastic, mixed, or ready to oppose their commander in chief?

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 42 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Active duty isn't allowed to talk politics, but so far, some retired generals spoke out against Trump and endorsed Harris.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 19 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

But on the flip side: go into any mess hall, on any base, and tell me what is on the tv for the news channel. I can guarantee that you won’t like the answer.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago

Fox News, unfortunately.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 40 minutes ago)

I was only following orders doesn't work in some courts

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

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

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours 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: next ›