Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.

Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.

He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.

“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.

Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

Woooo boy. I really don’t need to say anything here. Your previous comment pretty much cements you as a conservative troll, and anyone that makes it this far down is clearly going to see it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yea…not a conservative or a troll…but I guess that’s what I get from arguing with people who can’t back their shit up…you going to call me a nazi fascist next as well?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

that’s what I get from arguing with people who can’t back their shit up…

Says the guy posting Amazon links and duplicates of the same old failed bill from 30 years ago as evidence for their claims that the current Democratic party wants to eliminate the second amendment.

that’s what I get from arguing with people who can’t back their shit up…

Says the guy who thinks that 39% of a group holds more sway over policy than the remaining 61%

that’s what I get from arguing with people who can’t back their shit up…

Says the guy who literally tried to build a no-true-scotsman strawman 2 posts ago, and then just did DARVO shit when they got called on it.

There’s only 2 options here. Either you’re a conservative troll…Or, you are using conservative troll fallacies to “back up” conservative troll propaganda, and you just can’t recognize it.

So what’s it gonna be?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Says the guy posting Amazon links and duplicates of the same old failed bill from 30 years ago as evidence for their claims that the current Democratic party wants to eliminate the second amendment.

Yea a book and bills from Democrats…but it doesnt count.

Says the guy who thinks that 39% of a group holds more sway over policy than the remaining 61%

Lol head in sand

Says the guy who literally tried to build a no-true-scotsman strawman 2 posts ago, and then just did DARVO shit when they got called on it.

Rofl yea sure thing, it’s sad that any criticism of the left, is met by the same “nuh uh” response as the right wing idiots. Also you’re the one doing the no-true-scotsman by suggesting all of my links are not democrats…

There’s only 2 options here. Either you’re a conservative troll…Or, you are using conservative troll fallacies to “back up” conservative troll propaganda, and you just can’t recognize it.

I’m not either, but you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your rebuttal is literally the same shit the idiots on the red team do.

So what’s it gonna be?

It’s gonna be, I’m getting tired of the deflection and you putting fingers in your ears… you’re boring me now.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 215K

    Comments