this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
772 points (99.5% liked)

politics

24023 readers
3854 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. 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.
  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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 36 points 1 day ago (8 children)

I don't want to downplay the alarm bells going off over this move. It's definitely as bad as many are saying. On the other hand, I do want to set some right expectations. National guardsmen are modern professional soldiers and, as such, are far more disciplined than average police officers. Civilian casualties are always a possibility, and might even be what this administration wants, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see anything like another Kent State. If anything, I'll bet most of the guardsmen are pretty frustrated with Trump for being called up for bullshit reasons.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (4 children)

Do you still have misplaced faith in US institutions? Your conjecture was proven incorrect in less than 24 hours.

https://sh.itjust.works/post/39788677

https://sh.itjust.works/post/39779078

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 5 points 19 hours ago

My point was that soldiers are less likely than cops to unnecessarily use lethal force, and you think that cops using lethal force is somehow a counterexample? Logic.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

To be fair those incidents aren't inconsistent with his hopes, that the national guard may be more restrained than the police forces that did those actions.

Police have spent an entire career actively considering the civilian population potential enemies at all times, with less vetting and training than you'd hope they should have.

National Guardsmen have access to equipment and training, but their careers are less likely to have been antagonistic to civilian populations.

This may be an overly optimistic viewpoint, but it's not one disproved by those incidents just yet.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

To be fair, that was a cop, trained to panic

Edit: nevermind. Got on wifi and watched video. That was a cop trained that there are no consequences for its actions, and getting off on the impunity.

[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 19 hours ago

Not trying to defend NG or any US troops, but those examples were from the LA police, not the national guard. Of all the worst direct violence I've seen so far from LA, National Guard haven't been the ones attacking. From reports I've heard they are mostly standing around federal property because that's all they have jurisdiction at.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

There's plenty of modern professional soldiers doing the worst shit imaginable with a smile on there face.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 19 hours ago

Modern is different from contemporary, and by professional I don't just mean paid.

Yeah but the idea is the bar for them to start is higher than cops, who are trained to panic. I really fucking hope so.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Frustrated, modern (whatever that means in this context), professional, and yet, still willing to point a gun at peaceful civilian protestors.

The jackboot is coming down on your head, but at least it's polished, neatly tied, and only coming down hard enough to knock you out, not kill you.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Modern, as in trained for flexible mission parameters in a modern urban environment where earning/keeping the respect of the local civilian population is a critical part of the mission. A step beyond the reactionary notion that Brute force and brutal suppression are always the most effective path. A military where soldiers are trained to question orders and made individually responsible for following illegal orders.

For example, say what you will about America's ultimate failure in Afghanistan, our soldiers on the ground became experts in local culture and factions and built cooperation to achieve mission objectives without alienating the population. If our political leadership was as professional as our soldiers I think things would have ended a lot differently.

[–] SabinStargem 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I think the key difference between soldiers, leadership at home, and police: The soldiers are at risk of dying, if they piss off the locals. Our police and politicians are insulated from the consequences of stupidity and malice, so they never develop the character needed to ease tensions.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 19 hours ago

The training is not even similar, and neither are the hiring practices. I think that is the key difference.

I don't think you are entirely wrong though. Police tend to act very differently when up against protesters who are known to be armed. That's a big reason why concealed carry is allowed in many places when open carry isn't. The politicians don't want their thugs to be intimidated.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I think there's a chance they dont pull the trigger when the order comes, or point up the chain of command. Thats kind of the only option for avoiding Really Bad here.

I dont have enough faith in them to expect any particular outcome here, but it's in their hands. Kind of holding my breath.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The order is far from certain to come. It's not like Trump or his buddies will be anywhere close to the action, and a general order to unnecessarily fire on civilians is not even likely to be passed down.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

The order will be issued from tge top. Its already in the minds of every cop.

The question is how far down the chain it gets.

Maybe the general says 'No.'

Maybe a captain goes off mission.

Maybe a bottom level guy pretends his gun is jammed.

And maybe if they all fail, we go from the bad timeline to the worse one

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think the problem though is neither side is going to back down which means clashes between troops/police is going to keep escalating until someone at one of these events pushes things too far and the troops/police end up firing on people. Especially as they are most likely going to start trying to push to end the protests through arrests rather then just focusing on control which will just antagonize people more. Realistically what other end scenario is there to this if Trump keeps throwing gasoline on the fire? It's either gonna be a brutal crackdown on the protests with "less then lethal" weapons done by the military or end up being a bloodbath. Either way both outcomes would be horrifying to see happening in America, dictators use the military to put down protests and if we let that happen without any kind of severe backlash then we're pretty much fucked.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 day ago

"Oh, you have a [baby|upcoming deadline|scheduled holiday] in your regular life? Drop everything and harass these protesters while trying not to worry about regular life "

I'd be frustrated, too.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree for the army. National guard? Nope. As redneck as it gets.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Pretty much everyone I've even met in the national gaurd are people who re-enlisted after their first stint in the army to get a regular paycheck while they go to school