637
If Trump wins the election, US cities are at risk of military takeovers and mass deportations
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
637 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3553 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?????
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.
Congress didn't care either. There were multiple constitutional violations that Trump committed while he was in office, but Pelosi never went for those. She went for small bullshit stuff that would result in what we got.
The constitution is a piece of paper which has no power if the people with guns say otherwise.
So... Time for everyone else to get a gun?
Maybe. I've thought about it.
Women and LGBT people have been the top buyers of guns for a while.
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.
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.
Yeah, everyone has their own interpretation of the Constitution these days. They'll "uphold" whatever version of the Constitution their own interpretation allows.
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.
The paper won't stop him but the officer corps isn't going to obey those orders without him converting it first. A process that historically takes years to complete and leaves a military a shadow of it's former self.
Not according to change is made by the DOD last month to 5240.01. It allows US military action on US soil, including lethal force.
This will save so much fuel!