110
Remember, ObAmA wanted to declare “Marshall law”?
Remember BiDEn wanted to declare “Marshall Law”?
Every accusation is a projection.
They shouldn't treat him as a serious candidate. All they should do is keep repeating how he was held liable for sexual assault, how his business is being taken apart for fraud, and all the other crimes. Instead, they act like he has real policy ideas and it normalizes the extremism
Trump seems to be forgetting that he tried that already during the BLM protests and the Joint Chiefs of the military shut it down. They wrote a letter to the President and the Public stating that all branches of the US military support the right of US citizens to protest.
Then later on, during the beginning of the Big Lie about the 2020 election the Joint Chiefs once again made a statement that Joe Biden won the election and would be Commander in Chief of the military upon his inauguration.
When those 2 statements happened I recognized the historic significance of their actions. The Joint Chiefs were acting as an unofficial 4th branch of our government for the purpose of another set of checks and balances. Basically when the shit gets fucked up enough the military steps up and reminds us of their oath to uphold the Constitution against anybody and everybody, including the President. I was proud to be an American when I saw that.
Enter Tom Tuberville blocking military promotions in preparation for Project 2025, where they put loyalists in key positions in government and the military who will do what they're told whatever the Constitution has to say about it.
Exactly when he takes office they will ram through nominations and bam he got his willing army. Get ready if he wins that the end of democracy.
It's maddening. They're doing exactly what they did in 2015. Stop repeating anything he says.
The principal constraint on the president’s use of the Insurrection Act is basically political, that presidents don’t want to be the guy who sent tanks rolling down Main Street,” said Joseph Nunn, a national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. “There’s not much really in the law to stay the president’s hand.”
This is the single most important and relevant line in the article, and the only frightening one.
Once again, the problem is not Trump, but escalating, dangerous rhetoric employed in the short-term to try to garner votes.
We've been on a course for authoritarianism since the rise of conservative talk radio enclaves, and will continue moving down that path so long as fear and "culture war" is the primary driver of our politics.
"While deploying the military regularly within the country’s borders would be a departure from tradition,"
Not a departure from tradition. Illegal.
Holy fuck, the press is awful. I hope they get lined up and shot first by trump's SS.
The point of the article is that it may not be illegal:
The Insurrection Act allows presidents to call on reserve or active-duty military units to respond to unrest in the states, an authority that is not reviewable by the courts. One of its few guardrails merely requires the president to request that the participants disperse.
Even if it is, Trump would hold it up in the courts while military was still on the ground. That's what he does - whatever he wants, dare anyone to stop him, stall the courts that try to do so while he continues to do whatever he wants.
People seem to have conveniently forgotten how he basically gish galloped his way through all our supposed guardrails, and when it was found that what he did wasn't legal, it was far too late, and he was already onto Step 5.
Who owns the company that pays the writer who chose those words?
With a platform like that, it's just so insane that a person can actually be in the running for President and have a decent chance at winning. I thought his first "platform" was ridiculous enough and trusted my fellow Americans to see through the obvious bullshit, but how is it, 8 years later, he's upped the crazy and we're right back in the same spot we were before? Even with his disastrous 4 year term and him basically going full-dictator, and involved in multiple criminal trials. A rabid pitbull should be able to do better than him in the polls.
His followers see him saying "I'm going to use the US military against Americans" and they say "he's going to use it on OTHER Americans, not me, so it'll be fine." Then, when it's used on them, they'll act surprised.
It's like the story of the woman whose husband was an illegal immigrant. She voted for Trump and then was shocked that he'd deport her husband.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaigning in Iowa this year, Donald Trump said he was prevented during his presidency from using the military to quell violence in primarily Democratic cities and states.
The memo emphasized the oaths they took and called the events of that day, which were intended to stop certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump, “sedition and insurrection.”
Bush was the last president to use the Insurrection Act, a response to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of the white police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King in an incident that was videotaped.
Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the question is whether the military is being imaginative enough with the scenarios it has been presenting to future officers.
“There are a lot of institutional checks and balances in our country that are pretty well-developed legally, and it’ll make it hard for a president to just do something randomly out of the blue,” said O’Hanlon, who specializes in U.S. defense strategy and the use of military force.
Ryan said he thought it was universally understood, but Jan. 6 “was deeply disturbing and a wakeup call for me.” Several veterans and active-duty military personnel were charged with crimes in connection with the assault.
The original article contains 1,371 words, the summary contains 217 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
110 points (93.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4564 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. 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS