this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
567 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3002 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Already looking ahead to the turmoil his re-election could cause, Donald Trump and his allies are reportedly circling an idea to invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office, deploying the military to act as domestic law enforcement.

According to a Washington Post report on Sunday, the drafting of such plans has largely been “unofficially outsourced” thus far to a coalition of right-wing think tanks working under the title “Project 2025.” It was identified as an immediate priority for the hypothetical resurrected Trump administration, internal communications obtained by the newspaper showed.

In response to questions from the Post, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung provided a statement: “President Trump is focused on crushing his opponents in the primary election and then going on to beat Crooked Joe Biden,” he said. “President Trump has always stood for law and order, and protecting the Constitution.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, I guess, they could try... but then they would be delivering unlawful orders to the military. That likely won't go the way they think it will go.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

I actually suspect some of that went on last time, it's not like we'd hear about it.

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The military has been deployed against the civilian populace before, re the Ohio State massacre. This would be on a whole other level, but there is precedent.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That was the National Guard, not the Army proper. A little different. Granted, not if you're on the other side of the rifles it's not.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What difference would it even make? People in body armor with guns and training and tanks will effectively subjugate a population no matter what label you apply to them.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the US Army is not allowed to operate inside the United States.

The National Guard can be called out by the Governor.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like fascists are gonna give a shit. Neither is the military; their oath to the Constitution doesn't mean shit; all that will affect them is the consequences for not following orders and they don't want to get kicked out or court-martialed, so they'll do what they're told regardless of what it is.

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

True enough, but if we're being a bit pedantic anyway you actually said military, not army. The national guard are absolutely military. They even occasionally get deployed overseas.

Edit: also my bad referring to it as "Ohio State". It was Kent State University which is in Ohio

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's cool, I knew what you meant! :)