top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [M] 1 point 1 year ago

Hey guys, I gotta lock this. There's too much devolving into personal attacks and a shit ton of troll baiting. Weekends and major events are ripe for that, we had both this weekend. Please don't fall for it.

  • source
  • [–] 103 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Watch the news try to play it like it's the Marines not the army so Kamala lied.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 97 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I remember after her DNC speech, NPR put out an article listing all the misleading things in her speech and #1 was that she said Trump will jail journalists, and the article linked to a tweet of Trump saying "dishonest" journalists should be jailed but she's still being misleading because it wasn't actually a part of his official campaign platform.

    No similar article existed for his RNC speech. Having preferred NPR for years, that moment made me realize just how hard the media failed the country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    I was a supporter of my local NPR station for decades. It's crazy how far right the coverage has gone. Slowly over the years, then really hard in recent months. It's like they're desperately trying to show that they aren't left leaning, by going way the other way. I've heard long interviews with wackos from things like The Heritage Foundation all the time, with little to no pushback on the BS. I watched a magat congressman interviewed on PBS the other night with zero pushback to his bullshit magat talking points. The list goes on. I stopped watching/listening to them, but I've been kind of at a loss as to where to check up on news. AP or Reuters is about it, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I mean is anyone surprised? The media's capitulation and normalization of a felon rapist traitor and his enablers is why we are where we are. Because drama makes them more money and this nation lacks the rules necessary to prevent the media from lying to Americans.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago*

    I mean is anyone surprised?

    I am genuinely surprised that we made it four years under his first term without getting this far in, but we're speed running to military dictatorship inside six months.

    If you actually read the article it is absolutely swimming in reactionary revanchism. There's everything from the author defending Trump's association with the Charlottesville rioters to whining about MSNBC sound-bites to referring to immigration during the Biden Presidency as a "Border Invasion".

    This isn't even the boilerplate Politico "Lying when their lips are moving" false-equivalency. This is Derek Hunter, a talk radio frothing fascist and senior columnist for Townhall.com, doing exactly what his corporate handlers pay him to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    We need to reach out harder to the republicans, and we need more AIPAC money. Whoever gets the most election funding tends to win! (except for last time of course)

    So lets reach out to AIPAC and ask how we can close on more campaign funding, and ask the Cheney family to send someone stronger than Liz next time, to stand next to Harris. Is Dick Cheney busy? Maybe he can shoot a dem in the face and have the dem apologize for it. I bet Dick Cheney would say yes to this.

    /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 154 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

    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.

    EDIT: Formatting EDIT: Better Citations: (DoDI 3025.21, Enclosure 3, Section 3)

    https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302521p.pdf

    1. EXCEPTIONS BASED ON MILITARY SERVICE. By policy, Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (as well as other restrictions in this Instruction) are applicable to the Department of the Navy (including the Marine Corps) with such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense may authorize in advance on a case-by-case basis.

    LISTED EXCEPTIONSa. Such exceptions shall include requests from the AG for assistance pursuant to section 873(b) of Reference (al). b. Requests for approval of other exceptions should be made by a senior official of the civilian law enforcement agency concerned, who verifies that: (1) The size or scope of the suspected criminal activity poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States and enforcement of a law within the jurisdiction of the civilian agency would be seriously impaired if the assistance were not provided because civilian assets are not available to perform the mission; or (2) Civilian law enforcement assets are not available to perform the mission, and temporary assistance is required on an emergency basis to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property. 4. MILITARY READINESS. Assistance may not be provided if such assistance could adversely affect military preparedness. Implementing documents issued by the Heads of the DoD Components shall ensure that approval for the disposition of equipment is vested in officials who can assess the effect of such disposition on military preparedness. 5. APPROVAL AUTHORITY. Requests by civilian law enforcement officials for use of DoD personnel to provide assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies shall be forwarded to the appropriate approval authority. a. The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for requests for direct assistance in support of civilian law enforcement agencies, including those responding with assets with the potential for lethality, except for the use of emergency authority as provided in subparagraph 1.b.(3) of this enclosure and in Reference (c), and except as otherwise provided below. b. Requests that involve Defense Intelligence and Counterintelligence entities are subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense and the guidance in DoDD 5240.01(Reference (ar)) and Reference (j). 24 Change 1, 02/08/2019 ENCLOSURE 3 DoDI 3025.21, February 27, 2013 c. The Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies may, in coordination with the ASD(HD&GS), approve the use of DoD personnel: (1) To provide training or expert advice in accordance with paragraphs 1.e. and 1.f. of this enclosure. (2) For equipment maintenance in accordance with paragraph 1.d. of this enclosure. (3) To monitor and communicate the movement of air and sea traffic in accordance with subparagraphs 1.d.(5)(b) 1 and 4 of this enclosure. d. All other requests, including those in which subordinate authorities recommend disapproval, shall be submitted promptly to the ASD(HD&GS) for consideration by the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate. e. The views of the CJCS shall be obtained on all requests that are considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS), that otherwise involve personnel assigned to a unified or specified command, or that may affect military preparedness. f. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of Reserve Component personnel or equipment shall be coordinated with the ASD(M&RA). All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG personnel also shall be coordinated with the Chief, NGB. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG equipment also shall be coordinated with the Secretary of the Military Department concerned and the Chief, NGB.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Only illegal if someone enforces the law, and I have a sneaking suspicion the chances of that are low

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Donny can’t possibly wriggle his way out of this one!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I said that about the stolen top secret documents because of all the obvious treason and the even more obvious° sending/selling of said documents. Yet the american public decided it was a good idea to vote him in once again so he could pardon himself.

    Nothing will happen to him. I see no one over there with the backbone to do anything to bring him to justice. The best you can hope for is death or debilitating stroke.
    The bad news is even if that happens today then Fatboy Tangerine has shown just how easy it is to be a dictator. The next guy will be more organised.

    (°Why obvious? There was a fax machine right there. A fax machine in a toilet. The fact that there was old tech like a fax machine shows what it was being used for, but to move one to a fucking toilet full of the documents is plain damning. Anyone who believes differently is either an idiot, or corrupt. Or both.
    End of, full stop, no further explanation is needed.)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    This seems like it was probably written by AI. Has anyone actually fact checked this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Smells like AI, but that doesn’t mean it’s just slop. You can look up each of the cited laws—they’re not long or particularly difficult reads. They are all arguably accurate citations.

    1. Iffy "explicitly authorized" is a loaded phrase for this use case. He controls enough DoD leadership to make it happen legally without much resistance.

    2. Legit.

    3. It depends on the framing. If rocks were being thrown at ICE, the argument likely wouldn’t hold up.

    4. Likely legit.

    5. Legit, but remember that this simply means the military can be held accountable for their actions. If they assault or kill someone, they can face legal consequences. It's just precedence. Essentially, this is the point in law where you can't say you were just following orders.

    6. Legit.

    However, within this framework, prosecution depends on willingness—someone has to actively push for it, and the government has to be stable enough to recognize these violations as valid. For the most part, these are pardonable offenses.

    TL;DR: Until there’s a regime change, none of this will carry much weight.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It was. I keep seeing this at work. ChatGPT especially loves to add the unnecessary icons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    But is the information wrong?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, the information is correct from what I can determine. But it would have taken me a lot longer to find the relevant sections of law and precedent and sift through them on my own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They're all mercifully short reads (at least enough to get the idea if they apply) and famous enough to be easy to find. I just went through them in a higher-level post. They're all right-ish. 3 are solid, the other 3 are technically accurate, but there's enough wiggle room to get out of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I can almost the trolls saying 'well Ackshually he sent the marines, not the army! Pwned lozur!'

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Isn't the National Guard the Army?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Kind of, sort of, it’s complicated.

    They’re independent organizations under their given state, they’re coordinated with the army and air force through the national guard bureau.

    They sort of become part of the army and Air Force when called up federally.

    So technically they’re part of the army right now in LA as they were called up federally.

    All that’s not strictly accurate but, like, roughly that’s how it works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not really, since I don't think he sent anyone for the Air Force.

    The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military's reserve components of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force when activated for federal missions.[2] It is a military reserve force composed of National Guard military members or units of each state, the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. It is officially created under Congress's Article I, Section 8 enumerated power to "raise and support Armies".[3] All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of U.S. state governments and the U.S. federal government.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›