553
Trump Floats Deploying National Guard to New York, Chicago, and LA After DC Crack Down
(www.mediaite.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
553 points (99.1% liked)
politics
25197 readers
3283 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You sound just like Trump, now...you get that, right?
Sure I do. Exact the same. Biggly.
A baseless adhominim does not refute my statement, you get that right?
That's not what an ad hominem is. You are literally parroting his justification for suspending the due process rights of everyone he wants to deport...right down to the part about "allowing criminals to get away with it...blah, blah, blah".
If you think these people are criminals, then prove it in court. Present your evidence to a judge and jury. If they are as guilty as you say, then you should get a conviction. And no one will be able to refute it.
But if you simply do away with the whole process, you are guaranteeing that innocent people will be persecuted for nothing more than suspicion of guilt. They will have no means of clearing their name, when people like Trump accuse them of something they didn't do. Are all those people worth throwing under the bus?
Is not equal to "do away with the whole process".
Once again, if you're not going to bother reading things before replying to them then what's the point?
I'm simply responding to what you wrote. How else are you expecting me to read it?
How do you implement a "different process" without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now...or coming up with something else entirely?
And please, explain this "different process". I would love to hear how you've solved the problems with the legal system, the way it is. I'm sure the world will be grateful that someone has finally come up with a system that can't be abused. Your Nobel prize awaits.
You should take a deep breath, calm down, and read what Cile wrote. They were pretty clear, but you keep yelling at them for things that they never said.
Lol! No one is yelling. My excitement level here is "mildly bored sarcasm". Maybe you can point out where he was being pretty clear, and how I misunderstood what he was saying. Because even going back and reading it all again...it just sounds like he's dodging his own statements after I respond to them, by claiming that I'm somehow "missing his point".
Except his original point was pretty clear, as you said...and it was an objectively bad take. Here's the quote that I took issue with...
These are literally the same talking points that Trump is currently using to justify undermining people's rights. Seriously, what did I miss? And what "different process" would work better than having to present evidence of guilt before you can convict someone of a crime?
(...all said very calmly, and patiently awaiting clarification, in case you still think I'm yelling...)
He is accurately pointing out that the current system isn't working. He never said to get rid of the whole thing, you did. If you think he is "repeating Trump's talking points" just because he said that the current system isn't working, then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Additionally, you don't need to have a replacement or a fix, to be able to point out the flaws in the current system.
Man, you guys have really got to start paying attention...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-trial-migrants-deport/story?id=121080810
Trump is currently undermining the due process rights of thousands of people, using the reasoning that...
a)...some people don't deserve those rights because they're "bad people"...
...and b)...if we gave everyone the chance to dispute their case in court, it would take too long.
Buddy's comment above may not be the exact same, word-for-word...but he's still saying the exact same thing.
The problem with all these arguments is, who gets to decide who deserves the right to dispute theIR case in court, and who is pre-judged a criminal and gets sentenced without a trial? If it were up to Trump, all immigrants would have those rights taken away. If it was up to the guy above, Trump would. They're making the same argument, just directing it towards different people. And if that is the system that you favor...then whether or not you have the legal right to defend yourself, will depend solely on who is accusing you of a crime.
That isn't justice. That's a dictatorship.
The flaws in the current system, exist because if they didn't...innocent people would also be punished for crimes they didn't commit. The entire reason the system can be "gamed", is because closing those loopholes would turn the entire system into a draconian nightmare with no possible avenues of escape.
No, you're responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I'm not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.
You immediately contradict yourself here. "Can't change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you're talking about making changes that is."
"You're not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! 'better' is not good enough if it's not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you're advocating for anarchy!"
Man, I'm not the one contradicting myself here. You are just talking in circles now...and still saying nothing.
I've said plenty and you haven't refuted any of it. I'm not repeating myself for you again.
Refute what, man? The only thing you keep repeating, is that I missed your point, without clarifying how? So, I keep asking you for more information, and you don't provide any.
I have repeated my point plenty, you made it clear you don't listen. Reread my posts and try again.