this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
979 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19928 readers
3036 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
 

This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we're having this crisis now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Is it time to petition the military to intervene?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago (2 children)

When I was little, long before I had a reason to want it to be true, I had this theory that the Secret Service, which is obviously not a secret, was called that because they had a secret mandate: If the President ever gets really out of pocket and goes for dictator powers, it's their job to execute him as a traitor.

Anyway, I doubt it's true, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Praetorian Guard killed some emperors, but that isn't an official duty of the Secret Service. Of course, it wasn't an official duty of the Praetorian Guard either.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

I feel like the more likely scenario is if someone really wanted to do it, they wouldn't, but they'd let it happen by inaction if someone else did it.

Oh shit, I didn't see that shooter.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 23 hours ago

You just made me hope for a second, you beautiful bastard

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not yet. Trump saying something horrifying while it not being entirely clear he understands what he's actually saying or how anything in government is supposed to work is what we call Monday around here.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You don't want the military intervening they might decide to run things in a manner efficient for the end user instead of the rich people!

[–] [email protected] 22 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Historically, this is not usually the result of the military taking over a country. Usually the general who did the coup becomes the new rich person, thanks to all the political power.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

Odds that even one of Trump's generals would be worse for the country? Most people who make it to that upper eschelon in the military have some sense of duty, honor, a moral compass, and intelligence. There certainly is SOME 'failing upward' in the military, but a LOT less than business and politics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

Well yeah, I'm just making bad jokes over here.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Unless they are a person of integrity. Say for instance George Washington, Nicola wanted him to rule, he said nah bro!

We just need the general who removes tyrant trump to be a man who believes in his oath to defend our nations constitution written by we the people, passed down for generations and defended by the blood of those who came before his tenure. I don't doubt there is such honor still among those who serve. After all it is their oath to defend our construction from enemy's both foreign and domestic. Our dictator and chief fits both.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Let me tell you the story of the best officers I ever followed into combat. These guys were super sharp, and they were literally rewriting the book while we were fighting. The first guy took money meant for reconstruction and gave it to his Iraqi mistress. The second guy left classified intelligence reports out while dating a journalist.

These guys are human. Expecting super human restraint because of their oath is unrealistic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

I get it, but all it takes is one general with integrity, im sure thats the same odds as finding one in general population. Is it a long shot, maybe. You can still get people to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. A national hero they would become after the dust settled. Not just a footnote in some dictators playbook. Ambition can be a powerful motivator. Even if they decided to take the rains, i doubt they would be doing a worse job than our current admin. Could be wrong though. Our democracy died 30 years ago and has been a charade puppet show for the rich for far too long. What do we have to loose. I think we all know that our elections are over already.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

i want to do than cross my fingers for this. i wonder what the proper channels really are.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's no proper channels for this. Either the military leadership is motivated or they're not.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

My thought: Point out to them that there is no "permanent winner" here in terms of ending violence unless they stop Trump.

The people believing in his agenda are often aimless, and very often extremely violent. See the January 6 rioters, who continued to be aggressive after being pardoned, as well as fringe groups going on the attack now that they think Trump will pardon them. Emboldening them any further may mean years and years of continuing to deal with such violent offenders, AND without the support of experienced FBI staff able to track threats on a national level.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

It’s the domestic part we have to concern ourselves with, and thankfully the Joint Chiefs seem to still think he’s an idiotic shitbag

[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago

It’s the domestic part we have to concern ourselves with, and thankfully the Joint Chiefs seem to still think he’s an idiotic shitbag

As a veteran, I remain 100% convinced that the Pentagon has and has always had a plan for "a dictator becomes president." However, also as a veteran I'm sure there is a very specific checklist of things that must be true for that plan to be activated.

As a low ranking veteran I don't have any better guess than anyone else what things are on that checklist, but I feel sure it exists, and that if we aren't seeing them mobilize it's only because it's an extreme event and the conditions required to execute on that plan are many.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

They might think he's a shitbag, but I bet they're not unhappy with him. Unless he threatens to cut their spending?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago

i think there are still people in power that actually believe in the merits this country was founded on and would stand up to pieces of shit like trump. it's the only thing i left i have to believe in.

i certainly have no reason to believe that the limp-wristed leftists of social media would ever stand up to anyone about anything.