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

politics

24142 readers
3912 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] _LordMcNuggets_@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

been saying it since 2021, the US will fall into a civil war. you have a radicalized right with too many armed militias to count and a liberal left which don't possess the firepower to fight back. add ethnic diversity, vast wealth inequality and political ideologies to it to cast the flame.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

There are too many self-interested factions with incompatible ideologies. I don't think we're entering into civil war or some collapse but the US will definitely enshittify at a steady pace for the rest of its existence as a nation-state.

[–] bieren@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

Not even his hold on power has to be threatened. This is just people he thinks are yucky. Except for the underage females…they will get an exception.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Can we please take this opportunity to introduce an amendment to the constitution to make it a criminal offense to issue curfews or martial law?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.zip 144 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Civilians are going to be gunned down. The media will paint the victims as violent criminals. In the burbs, Frank Freeway and Mary Minivan won't care, what's on Netflix?

[–] scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

It might start that way, but there's 3.8 million people in just L.A. proper, I think he's deployed too little for the instability of the situation but time will tell.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 37 points 1 week ago (30 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.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 week 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 week ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 109 points 1 week ago (6 children)

This country has already crossed the Rubicon after the events of January 6th in my opinion. What’s we saw in LA was the declaration of war from this administration on its own people. We need to unite, fight, and stand against this tyrannical regime. If the White House is afraid of us now just you wait you pos’s.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 87 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Yeah, anyone thinking that there is even a remotely fair election in 2026 and again in 2028 really should come and take a look at that bridge in my backyard that I'm selling...

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago

Don't worry , all of this means that somehow the stock market will rally on Monday and that's really all that matters.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 42 points 1 week ago (3 children)

No no no. When push comes to shove the heroic military will fight against fascism. Ignore all the fucking evidence to the contrary and support the troops.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago

When push comes to shove the heroic military will fight against fascism.

I dont believe you

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not wrong. At "best," we'll see a fracturing of the military...which could be much more trouble than it's worth. I'd expect a small wave of resignations/desertions (since resignation for an officer takes a long time). The remainder of good people will actively try to avoid and sea-lawyer their way out of doing any damage to civilians without violating orders. There will be a good chunk who will happily fire on US civilians, though.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Resignations are only useful in the short term.

In the long term, Resignations provide new opportunities for the loyal to gain power and recruit.

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yep, but those who resign for moral reasons will be more likely to take actual actions to protest/stop what's happening. The military will have a hard time recruiting competent people in that environment, though, and the people taking the vacancies will likely have diminishing competence as time goes on.

To put it in perspective, if more officers retire at 20, they'll generally be O-5s (Lieutenant Colonels or Commanders), and so the next year's promotion cycle will need to promote more O-4s to cover the vacancies. This will then trickle down, and suddenly, you have officers who have been O-3s for just a couple of years being promoted to O-4 rather than waiting longer and gaining experience.

In that scenario, there will be less efficiency in planning and execution and far more incompetence, and if being used against civilians, more brutality. But incompetence is easier to defeat in the long run. Seeing the incompetence and brutality will deprive the military of the smartest recruits who staff the important IT, intelligence, cyber, etc. communities. So, while they may get true believers, a lower proportion will be competent.

No matter how it shakes out, it will get very bad.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

The military will have a hard time recruiting competent people in that environment, though,

They don't need competent people. They only need obedient cannon fodder.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Yep, but those who resign for moral reasons will be more likely to take actual actions to protest/stop what’s happening

No. They won't. Or, to be more blunt, the people who would actually be useful won't. Because they are the ones who understand the world isn't Call of Duty and a single guy with a pistol isn't actually going to Jack Bauer his way through an entire armed escort.

The military will have a hard time recruiting competent people

They already do. That is why the military is dumb as a door knob and full of the kind of people who just want an excuse to shoot some folk whether they are brown or not.

This will then trickle down, and suddenly, you have officers who have been O-3s for just a couple of years being promoted to O-4 rather than waiting longer and gaining experience.

Oh, well then. That will solve everything.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 6 days ago

The ASVAB was pretty basic when I took it. Fortunately, a health condition at the time kept me from basic.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Breathe. We will get through this, and how is a question worth considering, as the commenter above was doing before your sweaty takedown.

If you need to share this burden of despair with someone, my DMs are open. Spreading it among comrades is not OK.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

We convince officers and other respected leaders to coup at the right time at the right signal.

But we also accept that the Grunts and dumbasses are gonna dumbass. Maybe you can get like an E-8 or E-9 on our side but don't give much effort to E-3 or E-5.

But sitting around hoping that the military just magically appears on our side (that leans hard into Libertarianism at best and outright far right hooo rah at worst) is dumb.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I’m addressing an instance of doomerism. Participation of current or former military in the rebellion occupies my thoughts far less than that, currently.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Doomerism on the correct contexts is correct.

We shouldn't expect a military coup on this issue. The vast majority of soldiers will take the side of Police and ICE on this issue and proudly stand by them.

Doomerism here allows us to focus our efforts elsewhere, where it'd be more fruitful to strike back vs Trump.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 points 6 days ago

You’re describing pragmatism, a solutions-oriented mindset.

I’m referring to left’s problem with edgy despair evangelists suffering from a deliberately propagated fascist contagion that must be recognized and treated rather than allowed to spread.

Why? Because it deactivates would-be activists (including, for example, voters who had the chance to prevent this fascist takeover). It is not harmless. It must be addressed.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago

It is not even that they "will" take the side of fascism. They already have at every step of the way.

We can sit thinking warm and cheery thoughts. Or we can think about what it will mean to survive for people who aren't privileged enough to be a cishet white guy without any history of giving a shit about other human beings.

[–] silence7@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It takes active recruitment if we want the military on the side of the people.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 6 days ago

They should stop lying and using recruits as guinea pigs then

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

MAYBE that would have worked on the "I just want to go to college" Desert Storm kids.

We spent the better part of 20 years at continual war training an army to commit atrocities in the name of "peace keeping". Anybody joining under those circumstances either started out brainwashed ("My daddy and his daddy and his daddy were all marines!") or are basically cops who just want an excuse to wave a gun around.

At best? We are looking at the equivalent of trotting out liz cheney at the DNC. Sure there are "moderates" who might be won over. But the moment they hear that somebody doesn't like whatever "moderate" belief they have they'll go straight maga and then insist it is your fault for not winning their vote by slaughtering a few trans kids.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 6 days ago

"What makes the green grass grow?!”

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] h4x0r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/department-of-defense-security-for-the-protection-of-department-of-homeland-security-functions/

In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Because fuck the Posse Comitatus Act

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Yup. And so he can purge anyone that doesn't follow orders. This is what you voted for protest-non-voters.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›