Fascism at work.
post
Any American who picks up arms to support a fascist dictator against the constitution and its people deserves nothing less than to be tried for treason
From the halls of Montezuma to the front yards of LA...
Posse Comitatus:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained
What does the Posse Comitatus Act say?
The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.
OR, hey OR we could have shown up and voted for Harris. That also would have prevented a demented rapist felon from causing these problems.
But y’know. She loves genocide or some russian troll shit.
Par for the course- Republicans do something awful and someone comes and blames Democrats.
BuT sHe WaS nOt My PeRfEcT cAnDiDaTe!!!
The numbers don't support that story. The people who didn't vote were moderates who didn't feel a need to since they didn't see the status quo changing significantly either way.
Then they're fucking idiots.
I don't really understand. Your statement seems to be the same as the one you're responding to.
The status quo has changed dramatically, because a bunch of voters were too apathetic to vote for Harris.
My assertation is that it wasn't the progressives that failed to vote for Harris because of some failed purity test. It was moderates who were too I'll informed to realize trumplethinskin was going to change the status quo, so they didn't vote out of apathy.
You're suggesting there's proof that Harris was too moderate to distinguish herself from trump in many voters' eyes.
And I'm saying so-called progressives - with many representatives holding forth here at the time and still to this day - were saying they absolutely refuse to vote for Harris because she wasn't progressive enough.
I'm just not buying the former argument. I know moderates and none of them were confused by how bad trump was. trumps campaign was every bit as chaotic and bonkers as his administration proved to be. It just doesn't wash that people were fooled into thinking a SECOND trump administration would be the same as a Democratic one.
Well I'm glad you know who to blame with your anecdata. That's the important part having decided it's the others fault and going all I'm on blaming them, rather than looking at the actual numbers and trying to come up with a solution. The numbers do say differently though, but by all means continue to go through your life basing your ideas on anecdotes you've gleaned from online and personal interactions.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-nonvoters-policy-preferences/
Ah yes the critical hit of someone writing a number down on a piece of paper. Let's go to the tape:
But wait, does all this mean that nonvoting Democrats stayed home in 2024 because Democrats’ policies were too progressive? Not necessarily; while the CES data gives us the ability to judge issue preferences, we can’t use it to determine issue salience. That is, we don’t know which issues were most important to voters nor even if candidates’ issue positions were important factors in nonvoters’ decision to sit out the election.
That seems less sure than you're making it out to be. I wonder what the next sentence is.
We should also be careful not to extrapolate too much about the implications of these results for whether Democrats should or should not have moderated their policy positions in different areas, since nonvoting Democrats overwhelmingly supported a range of views typically associated with progressives—such as support for banning assault rifles, believing that skin color gives whites an advantage, support for Medicaid expansion and infrastructure spending, and support for corporate tax hikes.
Wow! that was a doozy of a sentence wasn't it. It sure was. But no, by all means continue to believe that poll results are more true than people's own words and the life experience of anyone. That is the quantitative mindset and many many enormous things have been built using it.
For funsies - let's see who participated in this poll you linked to here:
A large portion of the CES respondents are YouGov panelists. These are people who have made an account on yougov.com to receive periodic notifications about new surveys. Others are recruited live from online advertisements or are recruited from another survey provider. Therefore, while panelists are prompted to participate in the CES, they opt-in to being a YouGov panelist.
Yeah. You know a lot of progressives that sign up to receive political survey notifications do you? Well, if you did it would be irrelevant because a poll says different. Somewhere. Actually, it's this very poll you cited. O Irony!
You’re right. It’s certainly not blown up now by letting a criminal run things.
You underestimate American complacency. Ordering the military to purge all life at Mar-A-Lago would cause a week of uproar, and then no one would care about it again.
The left are complacent and forget, the right invent grievances and hold on to them forever—just look at how much they still talk about Obama.
I thought I read somewhere that using federal military forces against Americans was illegal?
Posse Comitatus:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained
What does the Posse Comitatus Act say?
The Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
In practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.
Found another possibility ...
Mr Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent.
Casting protests as an “insurrection” that requires the deployment of troops against US citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents are not the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address.
@HellsBelle @jordanlund This is the only real thing he could attempt to use as flimsy legal justification.The big questions are: is he TACO or Junior Mussolini? And how will the public at large respond to the Trump regime declaring the protestors are involved in a rebellion against the US? 🤷🏾♂️
Yup, just waiting to see what he does. If he invokes the insurrection act and suspends posse comitatus, then we'll be invoking an open civil war.
Let's be real. We know what this weak, weak person and his sycophants will do. The bigger question is what will the citizens do?
Army or Air Force
So is there a case that marines don't count then?
That's a good question, the Marines are Navy adjacent, so I'm not sure how that works.
It's weird that the act was updated to include the Air Force though since it was written in 1878.
The Air Force wasn't officially founded until 1947. The Marines have been around since 1775.
The President deploying Marines inside the U.S. without invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring an emergency, or getting local/state approval — especially just to respond to peaceful protests — is unlawful on multiple levels:
- 🔹 Violates DoD Directive 3025.18 – Active-duty military (including Marines) can’t engage in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized.
- 🔹 Violates the First Amendment – Peaceful protest is protected. Military suppression = unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886).
- 🔹 Violates the Fourth Amendment – Military detentions/searches are illegal without cause. (Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32).
- 🔹 Ignores Posse Comitatus limits – PCA (18 U.S.C. § 1385) applies to Army/Air Force, but DoD extends it to all branches.
- 🔹 Unlawful military orders – Troops must disobey unconstitutional orders (UCMJ Art. 92; U.S. v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19).
- 🔹 Impeachable abuse of power – Violates Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This isn’t just controversial — it’s flat-out illegal.
The President deploying Marines inside the U.S. without invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring an emergency, or getting local/state approval — especially just to respond to peaceful protests — is unlawful on multiple levels:
- 🔹 Violates DoD Directive 3025.18 – Active-duty military (including Marines) can’t engage in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized.
- 🔹 Violates the First Amendment – Peaceful protest is protected. Military suppression = unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886).
- 🔹 Violates the Fourth Amendment – Military detentions/searches are illegal without cause. (Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32).
- 🔹 Ignores Posse Comitatus limits – PCA (18 U.S.C. § 1385) applies to Army/Air Force, but DoD extends it to all branches.
- 🔹 Unlawful military orders – Troops must disobey unconstitutional orders (UCMJ Art. 92; U.S. v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19).
- 🔹 Impeachable abuse of power – Violates Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This isn’t just controversial — it’s flat-out illegal.
This is a clear violation of posse constitution, yes? Not that I expect that to stop them, they've been ignoring courts left and right, dunno why the constitution would be any different.
The military does not train to control crowds. It trains to fight wars. Trump has declared war on our own people.
1 comment