this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
258 points (98.1% liked)

politics

26834 readers
2867 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has suggested Donald Trump could attempt to deploy troops to U.S. cities under the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to call on reserve or active-duty military to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or enforce the law in states.

Kavanaugh’s remarks came in a separate opinion after the court on Tuesday refused to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown.

The high court declined the administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. Three justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch—publicly dissented.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Some, but nowhere near as many as voted for him. There's a gigantic canyon between "willing to vote and argue for him" and "willing to fight and die for him." Especially after how much of a letdown his 2nd term has been for a lot of people.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, they voted to cut health care from people, increase their own health care premiums, raise taxes on all foreign goods, destroy the exports of goods like soybeans, cut funding from schools/teachers, and make sure taxes stay low for the billionaires.

What did they want in return? Nothing. They didn't ask for better health care even though they are going to pay more, they didn't demand lower prices on goods that would be local, and no promises were made to subsidize local businesses to ensure they could start manufacturing such products to equalize the prices anytime in the next umpteen years.

I don't get it, they voted to pay more, to give it to billionaires faster, with 0 plan on how the middle class will ever grow back.

Small businesses will all die out, and they'll give it all to oligarchs.. for nothing in return

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

They get permission to hate the people they want to hate. See? They think it is a fair deal.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 days ago

“willing to fight and die for him.”

Is that what they call smashing people's doors down and kicking the shit out of unarmed civilians?

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

I bet this is exactly the kind of thing German citizens were saying to each other in the 30s.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Assume 50%, the military subset of the electorate probably matches the distribution of the public electorate.

probably

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The military is actually considerable more diverse and lower compensated than the general US population. But also considerably more male, so it's really anyone's guess, but they all have families and friends who are Americans, so it's unlikely they are going to be categorically willing to fight a war against their own country.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 days ago

unlikely they are going to be categorically willing to fight a war against their own country.

I really really hope so.