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.
politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
Hey if the military takes over my town they're going to be upset. As well they should be.
If Trump loses the elections, US cities at risk of stochastic violence and domestic terrorism. It's not like Harris winning would suddenly make half the country go, "my bad, you're right."
The rest of the world at this point:
Yeah fine, fucking whatever.
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.