this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
329 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3395 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] _bcron_@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It'd have to go all the way down the chain of command without someone saying "with all due respect, you're a fucking idiot and we don't want to be war criminals" so there are some extra checks and balances at play, and I'm sure Trump as heard that personally more than once

[–] Atom@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe, the chain of command and lawful orders really only work if the participants are willing and there are repercussions. A MAGA general will know who his MAGA Colonels are and so on down the line. Could it be scaled to the entire military, maybe, no one has tried. But could a General, a handful of officers and 20 or so troops be selected as superior MAGA soldiers reporting directly to the president and his appointed chief of staff? I don't think that's improbable at all.

[–] _bcron_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I hate generalizing but the military is chock full of reasonable nerds. People who want a GI bill to further themselves join and get filled with "if you see something say something", and people who want action go on to become cops and attend "everyone will murder you if you don't murder them first" boot camps. If Trump wants hit squads he'd be barking up the wrong tree

[–] Atom@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

You're right, there are a lot of very liberal people in the ranks. There's no disputing that. I'm just saying there are plenty of MAGAs around too, more than enough to cause havoc. And if shit starts going south, the GI bill nerds with degrees will head for the door because they have the qualifications to do so. They can stand up for the constitution because they will land on their feet after they get kicked out.

Generalizing myself here, the more conservative a troop is, the more likely the military is all they know. The promise of being special and fighting for the America they believe Trump will give them is more than enough to push some of them over the edge.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 4 points 3 weeks ago

Let me paint a picture that, I think is plausible within the law. Trump directly orders an assassination. With it comes a carrot (a general immunity for the killing). And the stick (a court marshall for disobeying a direct order from your superior, plus your name on a hit list). Then, he just has to go down the line with the same offer until someone bites. Once that happens, he will order them to go down the hit list with the same offer. Hell, he could deputise a militia to do the dirty. Not saying he would, I'm just pointing out the outer bounds of what is perfectly legal. And if the Republicans have a clean sweep nothing can or will stop him. Even without a clean sweep, he could threaten the life of any politician.