416
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
416 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2450 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
A couple federal judges have opined that he can declare an invasion on US land. This unlocks a lot of powers for him if they interpret the laws in their favor.
You say that. But the minute people's private homes get invaded by US Troops, US citizen's opinions will immediately change.
Republicans are strongly pro-4th Amendment and are distrustful of the police as well. Getting wrapped up in police raids just because you live in the wrong neighborhood will piss off a LOT of Republicans. And a mass program that forces citizens to ICE / Police / Military into your house (be it a massive push for warrants, or some other mass-scale law) would be a significant number of breaks with the Constitution.
Remember: the Republicans are "Deep State" fuckers who distrust federal officials. Do you really think they'd be cool with orders that let police into their private homes?
Doesn’t matter. A fascist at the head of government, whose party is in line behind him, controlling all branches of the federal government, having enough military support, can shush as many opinions as he wants.
He’s already demonstrated over and over that he will do whatever he wants, and dare anyone to stop him. To date, not only has nobody stopped him, or applied a single real consequence, the electorate has seen fit to increase his power.
Republicans used to be strongly opposed to Russia, too, how’s that working out?
The military is incredibly weak when it comes to domestic matters. Without police training, they will be incompetent.
There's a reason why part of Hitler's rise required the rise of the SS, a separate branch of the military AND police that was loyal to Nazism and Hitler alone.
What Trump is going to do next is cut off the heads of our Military and try to bring them under his control. What will actually happen is that US Military will become incredibly weak, as leaders are the experts in navigating the bureaucracy and actually getting things done. Installing dumbass loyalists at the top won't do much, and I'm not convinced that there's enough competent leaders in Trump's circles to actually do everything he wants to do.
They don't necessarily need to be competent. They only need to be loyally fascist and willing to deliver criminal orders. Firepower "trumps" competency in a whole lot of short-term scenarios. Beyond that, they only need a sufficient number of servicepeople to execute those orders. Even if most servicepeople refuse to obey, the US military is such a massive organization that there will be more than enough who do.
A best case scenario is one where one part of the US military stands up with force against the other part, and the fascists lose, followed by a military coup.
Incompetence means they won't be able to get anything done at all. Which leads to the rise of SS or other loyalist police groups (in the case of Putin: KGB/FSB).
You're ignoring a huge part of what makes fascism actually work. The ability for orders to be carried out at all.
Secondly, its not military powers that allowed SS to help Hitler or KGB/FSB to help Putin. Its police powers that let them do that. And Donald Trump has royally fucked his reputation with the FBI, the closest thing to a proper police agency.
I'd keep an eye to see if Trump can successfully take over FBI, because that's where the worst-case scenario lies. But FBI lost their headquarters back in 2016 because Trump fucked them over, and Trump still hates them because of Jack Smith's most recent investigation. So I'm betting on incompetence here.
Force means jack shit. Police powers are the powers to launch investigators and build intelligence. Knowing who and how and why to arrest people is the power of the Police. And a corrupt police is the most dangerous.
Military? They can shoot but they don't know what to do after that. There are Military Police units, but they're too small for any real action. Its FBI and other police agencies that have the real power that you're talking about.
It's not an on/off switch. Of course the military will be less efficient and more error-prone; that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to do anything.
Need to put down a big protest in St Louis? Send in troops with live rounds, none of that less lethal bullshit. Maybe it takes a couple days longer to get them there, maybe there aren't quite as many boots on the ground as you wanted, maybe they get deployed in kind of dumb ways.
They're still far better armed, far more cohesive, and far more replenishable than the protesters they seek to trample. The military would still win, they don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better enough than their opponent.
Now imagine if the opponent isn't "protesters," but "these brown people we've conditioned you to feel animosity towards, and they're iLlEgAlS!" Those brown people aren't even loosely organized into a protest, and as long as the troops aren't popping "my" people (yet), the public pushback is going to be weak as fuck.
This is so fucking stupid I'm wondering if you're beginning to troll me.
So what happens to St. Louis police in this scenario? You're saying that the Police will give up their authority to the Federal level? That's severely anti-Republican on all fronts.
There's political forces at play here that you're seemingly completely ignorant about. Do you think the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police would allow military action to take place in their jurisdiction? Do you think that soldiers would be treated more (or less) specially than the local police? Do you not see how this causes distrust in the two groups?
Do you think Trump is effective at recruiting and merging organizations so that such political actions proceed smoothly? (IE: Do you think St. Louis Police would deputize the US Military, or vice versa, to share authority in a way that both sides agree upon?)
And that ignores the long-standing US Military tradition of staying the fuck out of local issues. The military command knows they're a bunch of killers. They don't want to deploy locally.
What are they going to do to stop it?
Refuse to hand over their jurisdiction to the military. Declare the military to be an unlawful invasion and a break of 10th Amendment rights. Etc. etc.
At that point, you're turning the local police over to the Protester's side. And the Police hold strong sway over the local judges and politicians. FOP in particular is powerful lobbying group because they hold the blessings of the Police.
What is Trump going to do? Order the military to fire upon the Police? Lulz. That's not how any of this works, and its not how coups work either. Over control of fucking St. Louis? Its not even worth the hassle.
"Refuse." "Declare." "Unconstitutional."
Yeah, those "saying things" tactics have worked so well to ensure that criminal acts are swiftly and appropriately addressed in the face of the new paradigm of "do whatever I want and dare anyone to stop me."