this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
698 points (99.3% liked)

politics

31043 readers
1755 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While certainly true, we are fighting over the same military. And that military is oath bound to refuse illegal orders. So, the more judges that declare the orders illegal or declare an injunction against them, the more members of that military that will refuse orders.

Trump is known to turn on a dime against anyone who doesn't do what he asks. Once he does that to military members refusing clearly illegal orders, more of them will refuse. So, every bit sets the stage for winning more and more of the military against the nazis.

Best case, JAG officers from a state national guard advise troops to ignore illegal orders, trump attempts to fire them, but doesn't have the authority and he turns entire states worth of national guard completely against him. Then he orders other states guard to arrest them, and their JAG advises to ignore. So he orders the military to do it. And their JAG advises to ignore. Then he has lost the entirety of the military.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think a lot of people are buying into the image of white guy + tac vest + gun = ICE = fed = military. These things are in no way equal but it's an important part of the administration's plans for you to imagine they are.

ICE is a big bark and a little bite. These people have minimal/no training, they are literally angry thugs on a power trip. Step back and actually think about the outrageous operations and headlines you see.

They're tough guys when they outnumber you or are tackling a 70 year old nanny, but when faced with a critical mass of opposition they tuck tail and run. The only thing they have going for them is the costume and a gun.

Turns out that watching a bunch of conspiracy videos about how brown people ruin America doesn't make you a tough guy. What actually does make you tough is years of drilling, specialized training, decades of institutional knowledge, engaging in real combat, etc. So we're back to the eternal truth: the military are the true kingmakers of the state.

In terms of personal safety you still need to watch out for ICE on the streets. However, in terms of political power they're a paper tiger. They could never lock down a city or shut down an election without massive military support. Whether the military would lend that support is an open question, but certainly not without a compelling reason (beyond the POTUS decrees it)

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Exactly, so winning the tug of war for the national guard is key. And court wins help do that.