this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38987 readers
1394 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

To put into perspective: South Korea declared Martial Law during the end of 2024 which was short lived as their citizens were awake, not asleep (since a similar thing occurred in 1980 that lasted until 1987) it only ceased when a new president was elected, so they know what their parents have been through back then not letting it slide in modern times which was met with stiff resistance & protest from Gen Z Koreans.

Their president was impeached right after he enacted it as he's abusing his power via blocking legislators by using both law enforcement and the military averting them from entering their national assembly, including him ordering the arrest of both the judges and supreme court justices whilst illegally declaring martial law (all in which violate their constitution). People there protested against martial law.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

With the Democrats being lame ducks, the Republicans being mindless yes-men without a spine, and SCOTUS being mostly bootlickers, I guess you'll end up with martial law.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

That's not what "lame duck" means.

A lame duck is a politician who is currently in office but is not eligible for re-election due to term limits. A second-term president is the classic example. Being in power and yet guaranteed to soon not be alters the power dynamic and priorities of said politician.

Donald Trump is a lame duck; in his second of two terms.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world -3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I agree that the term "lame duck" is used differently in politics, nonetheless the Democrats are lame ducks in the common use of those words.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 45 minutes ago* (last edited 42 minutes ago)

The only "common use of those words" is what the captain posted. I have never heard that term used in any context outside of someone that holds a position, political or otherwise, that will be gone soon, either from term limits, because they lost or didn't run in the last election, or got fired/replaced/quit, but the new person isn't in the position yet.

You used it wrong. You can learn from the person that responded to you or you can double down and try to invoke a little-to-never used definition, but everyone will know you just used it wrong.

[–] scytale@piefed.zip 5 points 6 hours ago

Like all countries where this has happened before, it all depends on which side the military chooses. The outcome will be decided by a couple of generals.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 19 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

The US Army isn't big enough to take over the whole country at once; they'd have to have the National Guard on board.

The governors of every state would have to mobilize their units.

Now, if there was an actual major calamity going on [think of an actual invasion from China] the governors would fall into line pretty quickly. If it was Donald Trump declaring martial law after losing an election the Dem governors would line up to oppose him.

[–] Battle_Masker@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You sure about that last bulletpoint?

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 3 points 1 hour ago

You do understand that the whole 'Both Sides Are The Same Thing' helps the GOP?

They want progressive people to stay home.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Dem governors would line up to oppose him.

Do you have any reason other than your own expectations to believe this is true? Looking at their response to him so far I don't think they would do shit. I don't think I would have said that two years ago but their spinelessness up to this point is pretty shocking.

Walz hasn't done much of anything about ICE invading Minnesota and Newsom types his Twitter posts like an idiot now. What else have any of them done?

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

walz is a pushover thats why he hasnt done anything

if minnesota still had jesse ventura as govenor hed have been personally kicking them out with his boot heel

[–] remon@ani.social 36 points 11 hours ago (22 children)

I mean, you already have ~~SA~~ ICE thugs going around breaking the law with impunity ... so, pretty much nothing would change?

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 23 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Lots of pearl clutching and whining on twitter, then back to work in the morning. Probably.

[–] uuj8za@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago

Honestly, yeah. Lots of people in my town would probably be onboard and justify it. "This is a good thing because the radical left is crazy!"

[–] 2piradians@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I wouldn't be surprised if imposing martial law led to a series of events that culminated in a civil war.

Unless someone with opportunity eliminated Trump from office by one means or another immediately after he sent the order. This would probably be the best path to avoid having the country rip itself apart.

[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Eliminating trump wouldn't do shit. He's just a figure head, the rest of his cabinet and the VP will carry on the grift.

[–] 5oap10116@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

There is a cult of personality around him that others cant seem to replicate though. I wouldn't be surprised if that left some of his zealots politically rudderless. That being said someone who doesn't talk like a dipshit might re-attract the more moderate Republicans even if all the decision making is consistent

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

they would need someone as charismatic as trump to continue the charade any longer and i dont think they have anyone even close

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

I have a feeling that an actual martial law declaration would be enough to motivate a general strike.

This actually happened when early nationalists tried to overthrow the Weimar Republic in interwar Germany. Some old generals and their men took over the capital and declared themselves in charge of the country. A general strike was declared, and the whole country shut down. The generals were then left "in charge" of a totally shut down society. Needless to say, the coup lasted a short enough time that it's usually not even mentioned in world history lessons. This whole event pre-dated Hitler's first beer hall putsch by like a decade or something, if memory serves.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

IIRC South Korea's military wasn't really on board with it in 2024, either. I have very little trust in the USA's current troops when it comes to that ...

[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Hegseth keeps firing generals who refuse to comply and he'll continue to do so until he find ones that will.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 15 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Except they're all so useless they just lost a war to a country with no airforce or navy.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree with this, the US's leadership lost this war, not the military itself. The military was dealt a shit hand by incompetent civilian leadership having no discernible goals and ignoring decades of intelligence and threat assessments.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago

The military should have insisted on clear goals and it should be all over the issue of threat assessment. The military failed here. Yes the orange moron caused it, but a competent military would not have engaged without proper plans and a full understanding of contingencies.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Every time Hegseth fires another top general, and replaces them with a loyalist Yes-man, he weakens them, and strengthens the potential revolutionary army.

If a Civil War pops off, we will have a LOT of experienced commanders to go up against theirs.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

And we will also have Pete's drunk group texts!

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

Sounds like they'd be trying to tred on a lot of people who dont like the idea of being tred on. Money meet mouth time I guess.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Are you talking about the "tread on me daddy" party? The party of "over my cold dead hands" re-elected president "take their guns first, due process later". Don't expect them to stand up for their "values", because they don't have anything past party power and hurting the outgroups.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

These people have sufficiently demonstrated that they actually love being tred on, IMO.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

What would happen

States would leave the Usa. Many states. Probably all except New York and Florida (the two who have given him a home).

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If you think New York would stick with President Pedophile, you haven't been paying attention. New York State includes New York City, and New York City hated him long before he became president.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

you haven't been paying attention.

I just wasn't serious. I think nobody can really know what would happen.

load more comments
view more: next ›