8 ms·

This is a strange and probably illegal use of the military.

Cthulhu_ 12d ago
It's only illegal if you get caught. If this administration ever ends, the next one will be focused on the fallout of this one. (as is usually the case)
- lenerdenator 12d ago
  It needs to be far more focused than the last one. We can come back from this, but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.
  - azinman2 12d ago
    And doing so risks societal fractions against the idea of lawfare. It’s a lose lose situation.
    - lenerdenator 12d ago
      Not really. They'll get over it. Just gotta make the hole the perpetrators are in deep enough.
      - blooalien 12d ago
        > Just gotta make the hole the perpetrators are in deep enough. Oubliette [1^]: The dungeon you throw people in that you want to forget. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungeon#/media/File:Oubliettes.Bastille.png https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungeon#/media/Fi...
    - Phemist 12d ago
      Yes, but expect those prison sentences will be more popular than you might expect. The current admin expends an insane amount of energy pumping the size of their supposed fanbase.
    - dam_jackalopes 12d ago
      That may be, but the consequences for not taking these bad actors to task would have worse and longer lasting consequences. The portion of society that will fracture the most loudly has already attempted to storm the seat of government after a national election. We've seen what they're capable of and I'm much less afraid of that than permanently mafiatizing basically every level of the Federal government.
    - hardbass 12d ago
      Forgiving the south after the civil war led to Jim Crow. Forgiving most of the nazis after WW2 seems to be the reason nazis are rising again so quickly. Forgiveness has been given enough chances already. I think we should try giving the full punishment a try.
      - defen 12d ago
        The British attempted “full punishment” against the American colonies and look where that got them. There are no easy solutions.
        hardbass 12d ago
        The British lacking the military strength and will is different from how the tactic would have been had it been executed fully. Ignoring one's views about the founding of America, suppose Britain had executed this war with complete merciless brutality and fielded its entire Imperial might and militarily crushed the rebels thoroughly. Do you think America would have existed then?
  - krapp 12d ago
    >but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison. Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes. And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.
    - badc0ffee 12d ago
      > a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues. It's majority conservative, but that's not the same thing as what you're claiming here. It has 3 members appointed by Trump, but even that doesn't make them Trumpist ideologues.
      - krapp 12d ago
        I don't believe for a second that Trump, being the narcissist that he is, would appoint anyone but ideologues.
        edmundsauto 12d ago
        Probably more loyalists than ideologues. It’s the Project 2025 influence that has the ideologues. And the Thiel/Vance sector has the traditional influence-focused corruption, while the Trump family is more low-trust-society personal enrichment grift. Quite a perfect storm.
      - hiddencost 12d ago
        I really can't find any other possible interpretation of their wall to wall decisions on anything election related. They are a knowing and enthusiastic participant in the coup.
        estearum 12d ago
        Thomas is a born and bred loser, but otherwise they're afraid of being assassinated. Judges are under massive, massive amounts of threat whenever they think to hold Trump to literally any scrutiny whatsoever. Not a conspiracy theory, this is an open discussion topic among federal judges within their own conferences.
  - jst1fthsdys 12d ago
    [flagged]
    - mrtesthah 12d ago
      What are you personally doing to prepare for "collapse" then?
      - deleted 12d ago
        [deleted]
      - jst1fthsdys 12d ago
        Trying to establish ties with decent people in my community, physically staying in shape, training and learning. Ultimately, you have very little control over things when something large like government/societal collapse happens. All you can do is put yourself in a position where you can try to adapt to whatever may come.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 12d ago
      Thanks 6 month old doom-and-gloom account!
    - deleted 12d ago
      [deleted]
  - ezst 12d ago
    As a non American, I don't think you can get back from this unless you get rid of the 2-parties system. Identity politics is a big component to what compelled individuals to operate against their own interests and those of their country. Good luck, though.
    - nickff 12d ago
      I am not an American either, but there is a great deal of work on this subject, and the two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover. The reason is that multi-party systems are vulnerable to having a party in power 'promoting diversity' (or something similar), in order to disempower all their opponents, while making it look like they're allowing for more views. Examples of this include quotas for minority representation, and (strategically designed) multi-member voting districts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Survival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
      - vincnetas 12d ago
        well this book was written in 2003 and current day events in USA clearly contradict this statement : "two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover." With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.
        nickff 12d ago
        North Korea, China, Russia, Uganda, etc. are examples of one party taking over; the USA is just a country that has one party (you don't seem to like) with most (but not all) of the political power at the moment.
        anigbrowl 12d ago
        Japan occupied Korea from 1910 until 1945, at which point administration of the country was split between the USA in the South and the USSR in the north. Following an indecisive war lasted from 1950-53, the Korean peninsula ended up witht he situation we see today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea China's history is more complicated, but is also the product of military conflict following colonial imposition by Japan. To suggest that either country's political system is the outcome of inherent structural weaknesses in multi-party democracy is absurd.
  - dripdry45 12d ago
    You have Jared Kushner pulling a lot of strings on one side, and you have his brother, Josh Kushner, giving enormous amounts of money to the other side. They’re both incredibly evil. And it’s obvious that both sides completely disdain their civilian constituents, because their real constituents are corporations and oligarchs. It’s not just the two party system. You have to get the money out out of politics before anything else can positively move back toward democracy.
- 0xWTF 12d ago
  That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups. Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.
  - felixgallo 12d ago
    Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?
    - chews 12d ago
      careful, boomers have selective memory... the 80's was some sort of fever dream
    - JKCalhoun 12d ago
      You forgot turning the mentally ill out into the streets (literally).
    - mmooss 12d ago
      The GP said "stated agenda", which is true and important. Reagan openly talked about 'Morning in America', freedom around the world ('Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.'), etc. You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.
      - felixgallo 12d ago
        no GP definitely did not. The GP said and I quote, "positively stated agenda". The 'positively' which you intentionally left off carries the weight.
- techlover14159 11d ago
  Supreme court is the ultimate layer of protection and these criminals know it.
shimman 12d ago
Illegal? This is like the number one purpose of the US military, it's always to help the elite interests in resource extraction and forcing weaker countries into US trade policy.

It's only illegal if you get caught. If this administration ever ends, the next one will be focused on the fallout of this one. (as is usually the case)

lenerdenator 12d ago
It needs to be far more focused than the last one. We can come back from this, but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.
- azinman2 12d ago
  And doing so risks societal fractions against the idea of lawfare. It’s a lose lose situation.
  - lenerdenator 12d ago
    Not really. They'll get over it. Just gotta make the hole the perpetrators are in deep enough.
    - blooalien 12d ago
      > Just gotta make the hole the perpetrators are in deep enough. Oubliette [1^]: The dungeon you throw people in that you want to forget. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungeon#/media/File:Oubliettes.Bastille.png https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungeon#/media/Fi...
  - Phemist 12d ago
    Yes, but expect those prison sentences will be more popular than you might expect. The current admin expends an insane amount of energy pumping the size of their supposed fanbase.
  - dam_jackalopes 12d ago
    That may be, but the consequences for not taking these bad actors to task would have worse and longer lasting consequences. The portion of society that will fracture the most loudly has already attempted to storm the seat of government after a national election. We've seen what they're capable of and I'm much less afraid of that than permanently mafiatizing basically every level of the Federal government.
  - hardbass 12d ago
    Forgiving the south after the civil war led to Jim Crow. Forgiving most of the nazis after WW2 seems to be the reason nazis are rising again so quickly. Forgiveness has been given enough chances already. I think we should try giving the full punishment a try.
    - defen 12d ago
      The British attempted “full punishment” against the American colonies and look where that got them. There are no easy solutions.
      - hardbass 12d ago
        The British lacking the military strength and will is different from how the tactic would have been had it been executed fully. Ignoring one's views about the founding of America, suppose Britain had executed this war with complete merciless brutality and fielded its entire Imperial might and militarily crushed the rebels thoroughly. Do you think America would have existed then?
- krapp 12d ago
  >but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison. Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes. And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.
  - badc0ffee 12d ago
    > a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues. It's majority conservative, but that's not the same thing as what you're claiming here. It has 3 members appointed by Trump, but even that doesn't make them Trumpist ideologues.
    - krapp 12d ago
      I don't believe for a second that Trump, being the narcissist that he is, would appoint anyone but ideologues.
      - edmundsauto 12d ago
        Probably more loyalists than ideologues. It’s the Project 2025 influence that has the ideologues. And the Thiel/Vance sector has the traditional influence-focused corruption, while the Trump family is more low-trust-society personal enrichment grift. Quite a perfect storm.
    - hiddencost 12d ago
      I really can't find any other possible interpretation of their wall to wall decisions on anything election related. They are a knowing and enthusiastic participant in the coup.
      - estearum 12d ago
        Thomas is a born and bred loser, but otherwise they're afraid of being assassinated. Judges are under massive, massive amounts of threat whenever they think to hold Trump to literally any scrutiny whatsoever. Not a conspiracy theory, this is an open discussion topic among federal judges within their own conferences.
- jst1fthsdys 12d ago
  [flagged]
  - mrtesthah 12d ago
    What are you personally doing to prepare for "collapse" then?
    - deleted 12d ago
      [deleted]
    - jst1fthsdys 12d ago
      Trying to establish ties with decent people in my community, physically staying in shape, training and learning. Ultimately, you have very little control over things when something large like government/societal collapse happens. All you can do is put yourself in a position where you can try to adapt to whatever may come.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 12d ago
    Thanks 6 month old doom-and-gloom account!
  - deleted 12d ago
    [deleted]
- ezst 12d ago
  As a non American, I don't think you can get back from this unless you get rid of the 2-parties system. Identity politics is a big component to what compelled individuals to operate against their own interests and those of their country. Good luck, though.
  - nickff 12d ago
    I am not an American either, but there is a great deal of work on this subject, and the two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover. The reason is that multi-party systems are vulnerable to having a party in power 'promoting diversity' (or something similar), in order to disempower all their opponents, while making it look like they're allowing for more views. Examples of this include quotas for minority representation, and (strategically designed) multi-member voting districts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Survival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
    - vincnetas 12d ago
      well this book was written in 2003 and current day events in USA clearly contradict this statement : "two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover." With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.
      - nickff 12d ago
        North Korea, China, Russia, Uganda, etc. are examples of one party taking over; the USA is just a country that has one party (you don't seem to like) with most (but not all) of the political power at the moment.
        anigbrowl 12d ago
        Japan occupied Korea from 1910 until 1945, at which point administration of the country was split between the USA in the South and the USSR in the north. Following an indecisive war lasted from 1950-53, the Korean peninsula ended up witht he situation we see today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea China's history is more complicated, but is also the product of military conflict following colonial imposition by Japan. To suggest that either country's political system is the outcome of inherent structural weaknesses in multi-party democracy is absurd.
- dripdry45 12d ago
  You have Jared Kushner pulling a lot of strings on one side, and you have his brother, Josh Kushner, giving enormous amounts of money to the other side. They’re both incredibly evil. And it’s obvious that both sides completely disdain their civilian constituents, because their real constituents are corporations and oligarchs. It’s not just the two party system. You have to get the money out out of politics before anything else can positively move back toward democracy.
0xWTF 12d ago
That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups. Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.
- felixgallo 12d ago
  Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?
  - chews 12d ago
    careful, boomers have selective memory... the 80's was some sort of fever dream
  - JKCalhoun 12d ago
    You forgot turning the mentally ill out into the streets (literally).
  - mmooss 12d ago
    The GP said "stated agenda", which is true and important. Reagan openly talked about 'Morning in America', freedom around the world ('Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.'), etc. You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.
    - felixgallo 12d ago
      no GP definitely did not. The GP said and I quote, "positively stated agenda". The 'positively' which you intentionally left off carries the weight.
techlover14159 11d ago
Supreme court is the ultimate layer of protection and these criminals know it.

shimman 12d ago

Illegal? This is like the number one purpose of the US military, it's always to help the elite interests in resource extraction and forcing weaker countries into US trade policy.