288
submitted 1 week ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Kind_to_Everyone@slrpnk.net 13 points 6 days ago

There is literally no constitutional or legal provision for a president to declare martial law.

All a president has is the Insurrection Act, and I would be shocked if it were not struck down almost immediately if invoked because people were actively voting or an election was lost.

[-] chewypoops@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

Oh thank God! I rest easy knowing that it is not legal for the president to declare martial law. The law being reliably enforced, and the president being law-abiding, as things currently are. /s

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

SCROTUS will allow it on loose pretenses. They'll say that immigration is equivalent to war time espionage or something

[-] BauerBender@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

You’re being downvoted, but I have a hard time believing that republicans will allow this. It would be catastrophically bad for their party and when it’s time for Trump to be gone, they will turn on him faster than a motor shaft.

You’re telling me that the “We the People” crowd is going to ok with martial law? The thing that conservatives have been fear mongering since Obama?

[-] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

I have a hard time believing that republicans will allow this.

I don’t.

You’re telling me that the “We the People” crowd is going to ok with martial law?

Do you remember January 6th? If they were going to turn against Trump, that would have been the time. Republicans love the idea of martial law being used against protestors and racial minorities.

[-] BauerBender@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Jan 6th? Where a bunch of dorks failed to storm a building and the second one of them was shot they took off? Oooooo such tough guys

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 6 points 6 days ago

They've been fine with everything else he's done up til now. He literally launched an insurrection last time he lost and was still allowed back into power.

[-] BauerBender@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Do you also believe Trump will be president in 2029? I personally believe Republicans only use Trump to remain in power. Once he’s no longer useful to them, they will drop his ass.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 4 points 6 days ago

Do you also believe Trump will be president in 2029?

I wouldn't rule it out. He will remain useful until he's gone for good. They've backed his every move so far and plenty of it was worth standing up to, but they didn't. There's no reason to think they'll start being decent people now. They're all too busy grifting his moronic base.

[-] ContactClosure@lemmus.org 2 points 6 days ago

He's not on the ballot you fucking nincompoops.

[-] tangeli@piefed.social 105 points 1 week ago

If they truly care about voter fraud, they should override Trump and ensure external election observers are present at all polling stations and throughout the counting.

If they truly want martial law until the election is confirmed, to ensure the election wasn't 'rigged', they should invite a UN peace keeping force to administer it.

But, somehow, I suspect their motivations aren't based on any concern for legality, justice or democracy.

[-] Taldan@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

This is Steve Bannon calling for it. He's a true fascist through and through. He's also a criminal

Of everyone in this administration, he is most likely to go to prison after Trump's term. He deserves it, and he's an easy target for the admin to scapegoat for everything

[-] Pratai@piefed.ca 62 points 1 week ago

It’s very telling they they say if “he” loses the midterms. HE is not running. But they all know what it means. If THEY lose, he’s either being put IN a prison or UNDER one.

Fingers crossed it’s the latter.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

His first term was much like this one. Not quite as bold in the corruption category but still similar. Biden had four years to do something, anything, about it and decided not to. Despite the fact they obviously should, they're not putting Trump in prison this time either.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 56 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This whole thing smells like a long running plot leading to a coup. A whole bunch of rich conservative men are seeking to overthrow the US constitution and take the reigns themselves via proxies. All this is supported by Russia and China and anyone else that wants a bigger share of the world for themselves.

[-] Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

They watched (didn't read) the handmaids tales, and thought what a great idea

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 week ago

Trump isn’t running in the midterms; he’s supposed to not have a horse in the race.

Congress though? THEY could lose the midterms. Congess isn’t supposed to be a bunch of presidential yes men. Trump isn’t supposed to be the party leader.

"Supposed to" is how the US got into this mess in the first place. He and the GOP have broken so many norms that it doesn't apply anymore.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's become a meme to ask Americans at what point they will use their supposed 2nd amendment rights to start shooting at magas. And it has become similarly a bit of a meme to laugh at the ignorant non-americans for suggesting it.

But let's be real. When the magas are threatening to abolish your democracy, you yanks need to make a counter-threat of violence to keep it. It doesn't even need to be "serious". That drunk "we have guns too" lady is actually a fantastic start. But it needs to be followed up by more senior Democrats and I'm not talking about chuck schumer, just someone above "drunk candidate in Fayette county". Someone needs to say that if the Republicans enact martial law there will be blood. Say it jokingly. Say it in wacky wink wink way. But fucking say it. Get your wackiest weirdo politician to actually put the gun on the table.

If you don't, then at some point it becomes a matter whether you actually care about your democracy. Like, fuck, maybe you don't.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

These people are literally American Nazis.

[-] RaoulDuke25@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago

Nazis actually took a lot of cues from us. Especially our treatment of Native Americans, African slaves, eugenics.

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

Feds are already crawling all over the place, no more free press, supreme court is pocketed, congress has fucked off.

What would martial law do? Make a cerfuw or something?

[-] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago
[-] Quexotic@infosec.pub 5 points 1 week ago

And to be clear for those that don't know already, that means us. We will be cleand up. All of us. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chuck Shumer will be at risk. Got a passport?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 1 week ago

And this at a time where neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem willing to provide checks and balances on the executive.

[-] mefisdo_dot_info@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago

The checks they cashed in and now giddily look at their account balances.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

If they declare martial law I think we should all go outside and violate it in overwhelming numbers.

[-] CrossingtheAbyss@lemmy.today 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The best action to take is everyone in unison not go to work. The wealthy NEED you more than you need them.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Yeah, good idea.

[-] orbitz@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

Better just do a general strike, if everyone (not realistic but a good chunk) stopped doing their thing it'd make those in charge get it. I don't meant the Trump administration, whoever is really in charge and giving orders. Like anyone in the administration besides heritage foundation and project 2025 writer (to be fair not sole author) Russel Vought, he may have some real pull for sure.

[-] Quexotic@infosec.pub 18 points 1 week ago

To those that didn't see that coming, I'm sorry. To those that did, I know you have the supplies to ride the storm, and I'll see you on the other end of this. Hopefully it's over reasonably soon and we can rebuild better.

[-] sportsjorts@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 week ago
[-] finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Last time Martial Law was declared across the entirety of the US was 1862, when Lincoln enacted it, but applied it to specified categories of people (rebels, and those aiding them). But this is straight up Nazi shit.

Who oversees the National Guard if (when) they declare the Democrats cheated (because that will be the orders they'll be given, in no uncertain terms, on the quiet)?

Trump is no doubt sprouting a chubby little mushroom stalk at the idea.

What legal preventatives are available for the Democrats to stop this shitfuckery before it starts? It's a grey area whether or not Trump needs Congress or the Senate's approval to enact Martial Law, but it's not really been taken to court, AFAIK, to test. Plus, he ignores them as if he's forgotten they exist, anyway, pulling Executive Orders out of his arse as if they were on a roll of toilet paper he lost up there during a particularly energetic 'Truth' Social rant.

Australian here, BTW. So there's a lot I don't know about US politics. But I do know Martial Law wouldn't be good for free and open elections.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 8 points 1 week ago

What is declaring martial law going to actually do? All it means is the military can legally perform police actions

We already have brown shirts running around, and our military has been maliciously complying with orders intended to terrify the public since Trump returned to office. The funniest part was watching them resist the urge to march during his little parade, you could see their steps start to naturally sync before they went back to walking

Trump can declare martial law if he wants to, but there's a reason he hasn't so far. And it's not because of his good nature, it's because threatening it makes him feel strong but actually doing it is going to make him look weak

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

Also just to add onto the military thing specifically, logistics are a bitch and I'm pretty sure even if the entire military was mobilized from the paper pushers to the specialists to the grunts they wouldn't have enough manpower to occupy LA alone. The logistics wouldve had to be set up months ago so even if they do there's a solid chance they run out of fuel or food and end up buming around some random town that they aren't sent to.

The real risk isn't martial law itself, it's elected representatives getting killed or something similar. Though honestly speaking that also could trigger a succession crises or otherwise result in de facto loss of federal authority within some states.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] switcheroo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

And since that's absolute bullshit, we can expect our police and maybe even the military to step up and do the right thing, yeah? They'll be on our side, right???

[-] MyOpinion@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago

I am pushing for him to spend the next two years being impeached.

[-] sns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

I suspect most of them are pushing for marshal law.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Those allies should be put on The List for arrest, investigation and imprisonment.

[-] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Second amendment cucks are so hard rn

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
288 points (98.0% liked)

News

39699 readers
2395 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS