247

If Trump wins the election, US cities are at risk of military takeovers and mass deportations (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 hours ago by Theprogressivist@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.

Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.

He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.

“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.

Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Deploy the National Guard all you want. The Armed Forces of the United States of America swear an oath to the Constitution, not the President. It would be unprecedented for the NG to be deployed in such a manner to "democrat cities", so this is purely hypothetical, but the Armed Forces as a general rule, do not fire on civilians or otherwise restrict the rights of civilians without just provocation or reason. Yes, Kent State is a famous example of when the National Guard opened fire and killed unarmed civilians exercising their 1st Amendment rights, and the aftermath of Kent State is why the National Guard will think long and hard about ever doing that again. It would make the George Floyd riots look like a picnic.

[-] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 4 points 57 minutes ago

Man, you have way more confidence in the military not being full of MAGA idiots than I do.

As someone constantly surrounded by people in the military - they're almost all MAGA idiots, and the ones who aren't are fence sitting "libertarians" who go right wing every time.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world -2 points 40 minutes ago

And this is why I am dumbfounded that the majority of the left is anti-2a...the people who are gun owners unfortunately vote red, because they're single issue voters or Republicans. All the dems would need to do to completely destroy the GOP would be drop the anti2a rhetoric and they'd sweep every election until the GOP died and another party came to compete.

[-] timmy_dean_sausage@lemmy.world 2 points 12 minutes ago

I have never once heard an elected democratic politician (or serious candidate) speak against the 2nd amendment or even allude to repealing it. The only conversation I have personally seen/heard surrounding "gun control" is all about background checks/red flag laws which are supported by the majority of democratic and republican voters in every poll I've seen. All of the so-called "anti2a" rhetoric comes from the right in the form of fear mongering. That is to say (with no intention of being condescending), maybe stop listening to what right wing news outlets and politicians say Democrat's are saying and just listen to what democrats are actually saying.. You might be surprised at how sensible their ideas actually are on this issue.

[-] MoonRaven@feddit.nl 4 points 1 hour ago

I guess he's seen the episode of deep space nine and thought it would be a good idea...

[-] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 63 points 5 hours ago

I feel like everyone forgot what happened last time.

People in unmarked vans with no identifying patches or badges, just fatigues, grabbing people off the streets at night in the northwest.

Even worse than the official fascists, the unofficial ones who were emboldened to act with impunity, riding into cities and inciting violence. Attempting to run Kamala's bus off the road in 2020 in Texas.

Dems run like they want to lose. Always conceding the arguments of the fascists. Touting the endorsement of monsters like Dick Cheney. The kinds of monsters who made the Republican party what it is today.

If "senior democrats" actually gave a shit about avoiding conflict in the US, they'd actually be fighting for universal voting rights and eliminating FPTP voting.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 hours ago

Oh, I fuckin remember.

Honestly, if Trump somehow pulls out a win - and definitely, if he pulls out a win with some very clearly bullshit tactics involving GOP congressional leaders and the Tribunal of Six - I am completely serious when I say I expect an order of magnitude increase of political violence, up to and including a potential civil war. It’s that bad.

[-] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

Mega donors don't want anti fascist rhetoric because it cuts into the profit margins

[-] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 6 points 3 hours ago

It's almost as if fascism and unbridled capitalism have some kind of a mutually beneficial relationship.

Weird.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 5 points 4 hours ago

Allowing direct sales from car manufacturers and cracking down on unregulated supplements would knee cap fascism immediately

[-] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 4 points 2 hours ago

This feels like it attacks the problem at the margins. How is this approach more effective than direct dilution of power and flattening of hierarchies?

[-] unwellsnail@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 hours ago

This approach would be a step along the way to that goal. A good chunk of fascist support comes from people selling supplements or used cars (there was a recent It Could Happen Here ep discussing this). Those people have money, power, and outsized influence on politics from local to federal. Disrupting their profits disrupts and dilutes their power. If your goal is to disrupt fascism there must be concrete steps to doing that, and this would be one.

[-] borf@lemmynsfw.com 54 points 6 hours ago

We're thiiiiis close to the death of the "free world." Fascism is a blink away.

[-] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 22 points 5 hours ago

Seriously, and it's his supporters that are the problem.

Trump is obviously a buffoon, but it's his mass of ignorant bigots, thieves, and exploiters that give him his power.

Even if he loses, these people aren't going anywhere. They are the real problem.

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 8 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It’s so sad too. I just visited a concentration camp and memorial in Germany with plaques highlighting the evils of facism and thought to myself wow, there it is, in my home country (US). And I hope we don’t continue to get worse.

[-] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 hours ago

I wish we'd have that level of openness here in Romania. There's plenty of Romanians who think of the Holocaust as a specifically German thing and are wilfully ignorant about our complicity.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago

Always has been.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 1 points 3 hours ago

I can imagine the various branches of the US military getting into slap fights over who gets to oppress whom.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 18 points 6 hours ago

Do we have any idea of what military heads are thinking about that? Are they enthusiastic, mixed, or ready to oppose their commander in chief?

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 30 points 6 hours ago

Active duty isn't allowed to talk politics, but so far, some retired generals spoke out against Trump and endorsed Harris.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 hours ago

But on the flip side: go into any mess hall, on any base, and tell me what is on the tv for the news channel. I can guarantee that you won’t like the answer.

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Fox News, unfortunately.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 4 hours ago

Some high ranked thoughts could be inadvertently leaked to the press, though.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

You do not execute orders that aren't moral. The US Military is not like the Russians. Although, I wouldn't depend completely on that.

[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

Sounds like he's promoting firing up civil war tbh. How much of that could he get away with before people aggressively fight back? Or at least I hope we'd aggressively fight back

[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

Oh goodie, this that whole reason we have the 2nd amendment thing? Should work out great.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Hey if the military takes over my town they're going to be upset. As well they should be.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/oct/17/trump-wins-elections-outcomes-stakes

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024

247 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19047 readers

4118 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.
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

• 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