126
U.S. has no plans to send troops to the polls in November, Gen. Caine says (www.pbs.org)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

he highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military says there are no plans to send troops to polling places during November's midterm congressional elections, addressing concerns among Democrats that the Trump administration could use the military to interfere with the vote.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the statement in a letter to Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who recently asked Caine and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to confirm they won't send troops to the polls.

"The Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections," Caine said in the letter to Slotkin, which was obtained Monday by The Associated Press. "Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

Actually, they’re still patrolling DC.

Have you heard of legal precedent? It’s already been done. Trump has paved the way to do it repeatedly with zero obstruction. His test of the legal system was successful. The legal system has failed to stop him thus far. Any appeals at the federal level are just waiting to be dismissed by SCOTUS.

He’s already violated international law and invaded Venezuela, installing a puppet regime under false pretenses. He started an unjustified war with Iran. He has plans to invade Greenland and Cuba. He knows no limits and laws will not stop his agenda.

Are we expecting a GOP-controlled Congress to suddenly grow a conscience and stop him before the election? And how will they stop him? Finger-wagging? The only thing he will respect is force.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    DC is a special case because it's not a state. The legal precedent is now working against them in this situation, because it was dubious whether it was legal when they were first deployed to places like California and Illinois and courts have now ruled that it was not, so now there is no NG in those states that have not requested them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    Cool, he can override all that by invoking the Insurrection Act. I don’t see any motions at the federal level to restrict that power.

    And WTH is the rationale to keep the NG actively deployed in DC? They’re not a LE agency. Simple… it’s to terrorize citizens into silence and submission under the false pretense of a “crisis.”

    Just like the false pretense to use ICE to suppress the “massive wave of invaders.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    You're arguing at the same time that legal precedent both does and doesn't matter based on how it fits your argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    And you’re failing to see how Trump doesn’t care about either of those things, anyway. Legal precedent is just a code word that will be used to justify anything Trump wants. When SCOTUS sets precedent, AKA justification, all challenges at the lower level of courts can be dismissed. They’ll be beyond reproach. Trump’s supporters can then claim everything they do is legal, since their rigged Court told them so.

    And here’s more evidence of this, from the fairly conservative NY Times.. If y’all are so concerned with “fair elections,” why are you trying so hard to mess with electoral process, and violate state’s rights to conduct a normal election process?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    If he doesn't care about legal precedent or court rulings, why was the National Guard pulled out of those states?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    Simple. His test worked.

    President Trump said he is removing National Guard troops from Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, attributing the decision to what he described as reduced crime.

    Trump’s handlers have a fair amount of political savvy. He never goes full in all at once. He repeatedly tests the boundaries of what he can do, and gains ground every time.

    He could’ve kept the troops there as long as he wanted. Who would’ve stopped him?

    Yup.

    Fascists don’t capture power all at once. It’s a process of gradual erosion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago

    I would argue it's not just that. They also weren't ready.

    The purging of the top brass continued, and continues (today being a particularly good day to note that)

    The whole premise of the last two years was preparing for this November.

    Don't bother trying to convince anyone now. Just try to be austere and get ready as best you can, reasonably, and ignore everyone calling people doomers or whatever. I watched that happen for 18 years on climate change and finally understood that the vast majority of people are in fact lemmings whether they like it or not, and will happily walk off the cliff that is pretty obviously in front of us if you're paying attention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    Lmao no the test did not work. That was a PR answer by the administration. They gambled on the population going along with it and/or the courts siding with them, neither of which happened. There was massive public pushback, Democratic governors and AGs sued, and the Supreme Court said they couldn't do it so they were removed.

    Now if you're so addicted to losing and dooming as many of my fellow leftists are, and you wanna convince yourself that this was actually some big brain 4D chess move, then go right ahead I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago

    Again, you’re making a false assumption he has any accountability or respect to the law when it comes to himself, his allies or his agenda. He just uses a weaponized, hijacked version of it against people who disagree with his agenda. 🤷‍♂️

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent